{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120111011","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":"2011-05-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.195(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120111011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120111011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120111011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120111011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.195(a). The case was opened on 2011-05-31 and is reported as closed as of 2012-04-02. Proposed civil penalty: $50,000. Assessed civil penalty: $50,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120111011_Final Order_03152012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120111011/120111011_Final%20Order_03152012.pdf\n\n120111011_Final Order_03152012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120111011/120111011_Final%20Order_03152012_text.pdf\n\n120111011_NOPV_PCP_05312011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120111011/120111011_NOPV_PCP_05312011.pdf\n\n120111011_NOPV_PCP_05312011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120111011/120111011_NOPV_PCP_05312011_text.pdf\n\n120111011_Operator Response_06292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120111011/120111011_Operator%20Response_06292011.pdf\n\n120111011_Final Order_03152012_text.pdf\n\nMAR 15 2012\nMr. Gary L. Sypolt\nPresident\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\n120 Tredegar Street\nRichmond, VA 23219-4306\nRe: CPF No. 1-2011-1011\nDear Mr. Sypolt:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding\nof violation and assesses a civil penalty of $50,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth\nin the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or\nas otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Jeffrey L. Barger, Senior Vice President, Dominion Transmission, Inc.\n445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, WV 26301\nMr. Byron Coy, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164203330205]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nDominion Transmission, Inc., ) CPF No. 1-2011-1011\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 15 and August 17, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nNew York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), as agent for the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Dominion\nTransmission, Inc.’s (Dominion or Respondent) Woodhull Storage Field in Woodhull, New\nYork. Dominion, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, is the interstate gas transmission\nsubsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc. Respondent operates underground natural gas\nstorage systems and maintains 7,800 miles of pipeline in six states — Ohio, West Virginia,\nPennsylvania, New York, Maryland and Virginia.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 31, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nDominion had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.195(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$50,000 for the alleged violation.\nDominion responded to the Notice by letter dated June 29, 2011 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegation of violation but provided an explanation of its actions.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Dominion did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.195(a), which states:\n1 http://www.dom.com (last accessed 11/9/2011).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.195 Protection against accidental overpressuring.\n(a) General requirements. Except as provided in § 192.l97, each\npipeline that is connected to a gas source so that the maximum allowable\noperating pressure could be exceeded as the result of pressure control\nfailure or of some other type of failure, must have pressure relieving or\npressure limiting devices that meet the requirements of § 192.199 and\n§ 192.201.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.195(a) by failing to have pressure\nrelieving or pressure limiting devices installed on each pipeline connected to a gas source, for\nwhich the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) could be exceeded as a result of\npressure control failure or of some other type of failure, that met the requirements of § 192.199\nand § 192.201. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the Woodhull Storage Field had an MAOP\nthat exceeded that of the downstream pipeline system, which was fed by three pipelines. The\nNotice further alleged that Dominion failed to have any additional pressure relieving or pressure\nlimiting device installed downstream of the storage field that could prevent an accidental over-\npressurization of the system.\n2\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation but explained that, on December 28, 2010,\nit had installed additional devices to provide overpressure protection at the storage field and that\nsuch measures satisfied the requirements of § 192.195. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.195(a) by failing to have\npressure relieving or pressure limiting devices that met the requirements of § 192.199 and\n§ 192.201.\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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $50,000 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,000 for Dominion’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.195(a), for failing to have pressure relieving or pressure limiting devices\ninstalled on each pipeline connected to a gas source, for which the MAOP could be exceeded as\na result of pressure control failure or of some other type of failure, that met the requirements of\n§§ 192.199 and 192.201. As noted above, the company did not contest the allegation of\nviolation.\n2 The Woodhull Storage Field had an MAOP of 2,160 psig, while two of the downstream lines had an MAOP of\n1,000 psig, and one had 1,200 psig.\n\n\n\n3\nThe requirement for pipeline operators to have pressure relief devices is derived from several\nregulations. First, under § 192.195, overpressure protection devices must be installed on\npipelines in a manner that will prevent the maximum allowable operating pressure from being\nexceeded, in accordance with §§ 192.199 and 192.201. The purpose of this regulation is to\nprotect pipelines from the risks associated with internal pressures exceeding their safe operating\nlimits. Likewise, under § 192.201(b) if there is more than one pressure regulating or compressor\nstation feeding into a pipeline, “relief valves or other protective devices must be installed at each\nstation to ensure that the complete failure of the largest capacity regulator or compressor . . . will\nnot impose pressures on any part of the pipeline” that are higher than what is safe.\nTaken together, the purpose of these provisions is to reduce the risk of overpressure in pipelines\nwhen a pressure control failure occurs, such as the failure of a regulator or compressor. To\nprotect against that risk, §§ 192.195(a) and 192.201(b) require pipelines to have pressure\nrelieving or pressure limiting devices.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the\nviolation justify the proposed penalty. The pipeline system downstream of the Woodhull Storage\nField was connected to a gas source that could have allowed the MAOP to exceed the safe limits\nof the pipeline and thereby pose a significant threat to the safe operation of Dominion’s system\nin a High Consequence Area.\n3\nFurthermore, with regard to history of prior offenses, the record shows that Respondent had\npreviously been cited for a similar violation.4 The company also acknowledged that the relief\nvalves downstream of the regulator may not have been adequate to protect against over-\npressuring.\nprotection and its compliance history, I can find no basis for elimination or reduction of the civil\npenalty.\n5 In light of the company’s apparent knowledge of the need for overpressure\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $50,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.195(a).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\n3 See 49 C.F.R. 192.903 for a definition of “High Consequence Area.”\n4 In the Matter of Dominion Transmission, Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 1-2009-1006 (Dec. 30, 2010), Item 5;\nDecision on Petition for Reconsideration (October 13, 2011). Final Orders and Decisions on Petitions for\nReconsideration are generally available on the PHMSA website,\nhttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions_opid_0.html?nocache=8998.\n5 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (May 31, 2011), Exhibit A-2.\n\n\n\n4\nFailure to pay the $50,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12525}