{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120121013","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":"2012-05-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.163(e), 192.603(b), 192.709(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120121013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.163(e),  192.603(b),  192.709(c). The case was opened on 2012-05-14 and is reported as closed as of 2013-06-25. Proposed civil penalty: $150,800. Assessed civil penalty: $33,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120121013_Final Order_05292013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121013/120121013_Final%20Order_05292013.pdf\n\n120121013_Final Order_05292013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121013/120121013_Final%20Order_05292013_text.pdf\n\n120121013_NOPV PCP PCO_05142012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121013/120121013_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05142012_text.pdf\n\n120121013_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05142012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121013/120121013_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05142012.pdf\n\n120121013_Operator Response_06142012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121013/120121013_Operator%20Response_06142012.pdf\n\n120121013_Final Order_05292013_text.pdf\n\nMAY 29, 2013\nMr. Thomas F. Farrell, II\nPresident\nDominion Resources Services, Inc.\n701 East Cary St.\nRichmond, VA 23219\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-1013\nDear Mr. Farrell:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws four of\nthe allegations of violation and the proposed compliance order, makes two findings of violation,\nand assesses a reduced civil penalty of $33,300. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. Byron E. Coy, Eastern Region Director, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Jeffrey L. Barger, Vice President, Pipeline Operations, Dominion Transmission, Inc.,\n445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, WV 26301-2450\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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. 1-2012-1013\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 22, 2009, and June 22, 2010, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspectors from the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC), acting as agents for\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an inspection of the Fink Kennedy Storage Field facilities of Dominion\nTransmission, Inc. (Dominion or Respondent), in West Virginia. Dominion is a subsidiary of\nDominion Resources Services, Inc., and operates 7,800 miles of natural gas pipelines in six states\n— Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland and Virginia.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 14, 2012, 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 Dominion had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.163, 192.603, and 192.709, and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $150,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nDominion responded to the Notice by letter dated June 14, 2012 (Response), and by letter dated\nJuly 16, 2012 (Supplemental Response). Respondent contested the allegations of violation and\nprovided additional information. Dominion did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits 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. § 192.163(e), which states:\n1 https://www.dom.com/business/gas-transmission/index.jsp (last accessed April 15, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.163 Compressor stations: Design and construction.\n(a) . . .\n(e) Electrical facilities. Electrical equipment and wiring installed in\ncompressor stations must conform to the National Electrical Code,\nANSI/NFPA 70, so far as that code is applicable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) by failing to install its\nelectrical equipment and wiring in compressor stations in conformance with the National\nElectrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Dominion failed to seal\nthe electrical conduits entering the explosion-proof, factory-sealed enclosure for Panel K in the\nWolf Run Compressor Station in accordance with the National Electrical Code NFPA 70-2005.\nIn its Response, Dominion provided additional photographic evidence of the factory-sealed\nenclosure for Panel K and asserted that upon further review by company personnel, Dominion\nhad determined that the conduits between the “explosion proof and dust proof factory sealed\nenclosure” and the “explosion proof enclosure” were indeed factory-sealed and that therefore\nadditional seals were not required under the National Electrical Code.\n2\nI agree that the conduits between the enclosures were sealed. The nameplate on that equipment\nindicates a special design to eliminate the need for a seal between the two enclosures observed\nby the WV PSC inspector during the inspection. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that\nItem 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states:\n§ 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the\nprocedures established under § 192.605.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records\nnecessary to administer the operations and maintenance procedures required under § 192.605.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Dominion’s procedures developed pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 192.731 required the inspection and testing of pressure-relief devices for its\ncompressor stations. During the WV PSC inspection, Dominion was unable to provide records\nof a commissioning test or initial performance test for the compressor high-pressure shutdown\ndevices, or otherwise document that the test was performed.\nIn its Response, Dominion provided commissioning test records for three of the four Wolf Run\nCompressor Station units. Although Dominion could not locate the records for the last\ncompressor unit, Dominion asserted that it was tested like the others.\nSection 192.603 requires that Dominion keep all records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under § 192.605. Dominion’s mere statement that the fourth compressor station unit\nwas tested is insufficient to demonstrate compliance with § 192.603. Accordingly, after\n2 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n3\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing\nto keep records necessary to administer its operations and maintenance procedures required\nunder § 192.605.\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\nuntil the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever\nis longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each patrol, survey, inspection and test required by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at\nleast five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Dominion failed to adequately document the\noriginal annual capacity review and the calculated relief capacity for each pressure relief device\nfor Wolf Run Compressor Units 1-4 from 2008 until the date of the inspection, as required under\n49 C.F.R. § 192.743(b). The Notice further alleged a repeat violation, as the operator had been\nfound in violation of the same regulation in a previous enforcement action, CPF No. 1-2009-\n1006.\nIn its Response, Dominion contested the allegation, asserting that the relief devices in question\nprovided secondary or “back up” overpressure protection and therefore no annual capacity\nreviews were required. Additionally, Respondent asserted that at the time of the WV PSC\ninspection, Respondent was still in the process of responding to virtually the same charge in\nanother Notice of Probable Violation stemming from a 2008 Pilot Integrated Inspection and that\ntherefore the allegation should not be characterized as a “repeat” violation.\nRespondent’s first argument is essentially the same defense raised by Dominion in a prior\nenforcement action, CPF No. 1-2009-1006.3 In that case, I rejected Dominion’s assertion that\nsecondary overpressure protection devices are not subject to annual capacity reviews. I found\nthat “secondary” overpressure protection devices are indeed subject to annual capacity reviews if\nthey are otherwise required to be installed on a pipeline for overpressure protection. I find that\nCPF No. 1-2009-1006 is controlling in this case. Just as in the earlier case, Dominion should\nhave maintained records for the capacity reviews and calculated relief capacity calculations for\nthe pressure-relief devices at the Wolf Run Station.\nAs for Respondent’s second argument, I agree that since the earlier case was not finalized until\nOctober 2011, Item #3 cannot be accurately described as a “repeat” violation. The alleged\nviolation in the second case occurred prior to the final adjudication of the first one, so Dominion\n3 In the Matter of Dominion Transmission, Inc., CPF No. 1-2009-1006, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration\n(October 13, 2011).\n\n\n\n4\ncannot reasonably be assessed a higher penalty for ignoring an earlier agency decision involving\nthe same regulation. Because this defense relates to the assessment of a penalty, it is discussed\nmore fully in the Assessment of Penalties section below.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection and test\nrequired by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least five years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), as cited above, by\nfailing to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection and test required by Subparts L and\nM of Part 192 for at least five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is\ncompleted, whichever is longer. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Dominion failed to produce\nrecords of emergency valve inspections and testing for well BW7752 and line H21796, for\ncalendar years 2007 and 2008.\nIn its Response, Dominion contested the allegation, stating it had in fact produced the records in\nquestion during the WV PSC inspection and that no deficiencies had been identified. Dominion\nprovided copies of the records again in its Response. After considering all of the evidence, I find\nthat the records submitted by Dominion in its Response do satisfy the record maintenance\nrequirement for the emergency valve inspections and testing for both well BW7752 and line\nH21796, for calendar years 2007 and 2008. Accordingly, I hereby order that Item 4 be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), as cited above, by\nfailing to ensure that electrical equipment and wiring installed in its compressor stations conform\nto the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Dominion\ndid not provide any documentation of the ground fault protection performance tests for the\nelectrical components in the Wolf Run Compressor Station.\nIn its Response, Dominion contended that the applicable provision of the National Electrical\nCode, ANSI/NFPA 70, Section 230.95, does not cover the electrical facilities at the Wolf Run\nCompressor Station, as the combined rating of the microturbines is 900 amperes. Under the\nNational Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, Section 230.95, ground fault protection systems are\nonly required for systems rated for 1,000 amperes or more.\nI have reviewed Section 230.95 of the National Electrical Code, Ground Fault Protection of\nEquipment, which provides: “Ground-fault protection of equipment shall be provided for solidly\ngrounded wye electrical services of more than 150 volts to ground, but not exceeding 600 volts\nphase-to-phase, for each service disconnect rated 1,000 amperes or more.” Respondent’s\nmicroturbine facilities, with a combined rating of 900 amperes, do not require ground fault\nprotection. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 5 be withdrawn.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n5\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES\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 $150,800 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), for failing to install electrical equipment and wiring in compressor\nstations in conformance with the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70. As discussed above,\nItem 1 is withdrawn. Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), for failing to keep records necessary to administer the operations and\nmaintenance procedures required under § 192.605. For the reasons discussed above, I find that\nDominion has not demonstrated compliance with § 192.603 simply by stating that it did conduct\nthe proper testing. In its Response, Dominion provided copies of the required records for three\nof the four units at its Wolf Run Station facility and indicated its “belief” that the remaining unit\nhad also been properly tested. The company asked for a reduced penalty.\nHaving reviewed the evidence, I find that the proposed penalty for this Item was based upon a\nsingle instance of failure to keep proper records and therefore no reduction is warranted for\nDominion’s partial production of documents. Respondent has not argued that the penalty should\nbe reduced on any other grounds and I find that the proposed amount is justified by the relevant\nassessment considerations, including the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, and\nthe degree of operator culpability. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty\nof $21,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,100 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), for failing to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection and test\nrequired by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least five years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer. As discussed above, I agree with\nRespondent’s argument that the allegation should not be considered a repeat violation.\nDominion filed a Petition for Reconsideration on February 23, 2011, in the first proceeding,\nCPF No. 1-2009-1006, but a Decision was not issued until October 13, 2011. Since the alleged\nviolation in the instant case occurred between September 2009 and June 2010, it cannot be\naccurately described as a repeat violation. Therefore, the portion of the penalty attributable to a\nrepeat violation should be eliminated. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced\n\n\n\n6\ncivil penalty of $12,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,600 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), for failing to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection and test\nrequired by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least five years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer. As discussed above, Item 4 is withdrawn.\nBased upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), for failing to install its electrical equipment and wiring in compressor\nstations in conformance with Section 230.95 9 of the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70.\nAs discussed above, Item 5 is withdrawn. Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed\npenalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $33,300.\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.\nFailure to pay the $33,300 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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2 and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404. However, I have withdrawn Items 1 and 5, so the compliance\nterms proposed in the Notice for these Items are no longer needed. I am also withdrawing the\nterms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 because it involved a past recordkeeping violation that\nno longer needs correction.\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.\n\n\n\n7\nPHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final\nOrder by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all\nother requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order,\nincluding any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty,\nthe Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived.\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\n\n120121013_NOPV PCP PCO_05142012_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\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nMay 14, 2012\nMr. Jeffrey L. Barger, Senior V.P.\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\n445 West Main Street\nClarksburg, WV 26301\nCPF 1-2012-1013\nDear Mr. Barger:\nBetween September 22, 2009, and June 22, 2010, inspectors from the West Virginia Public Service\nCommission (WV PSC), acting as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Fink\nKennedy Storage field facilities in West Virginia.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolations are:\n1. §192.163 Compressor stations: Design and construction.\n(e) Electrical facilities. Electrical equipment and wiring installed in compressor stations must\nconform to the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, so far as that code is applicable.\nPursuant to the National Electrical Code (NEC) NFPA 70 – 2005: section 501.15B., Dominion\nTransmission, Inc. (DTI) failed to seal the electrical conduit entering the explosion proof, factory\nsealed enclosure for Panel K in the Wolf Run compressor station.\nWV PSC representatives discovered the condition during the inspection, and the condition\napparently existed since the construction of the compressor station in 2008. WV PSC took\nphotographs of the seal. DTI had not initiated any remedial action prior to the WV PSC inspection.\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-1013\n2. § 192.603 General Provisions\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures established\nunder §192.605.\nPursuant to DTI §192.731 (a) Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices, DTI did\nnot provide records of a commissioning test or initial performance test for the compressor high\npressure shutdown devices, or otherwise document that the test was performed.\nWV PSC reviewed a DTI checklist listing of items from the 2006 commissioning of Wolf Run\ncompressor station, and the pressure shutdown devices were not on that listing.\n3. § 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission line for the periods\nspecified:\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and M of this\npart must be retained for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is\ncompleted, whichever is longer\nPursuant to §192.743 (b), for the pressure relief devices on the discharge piping for Wolf Run\nCompressor Units 1 – 4, DTI failed to adequately document the original annual capacity review and\ncalculated relief capacity for each relief device. In addition, DTI failed to document when using the\nexisting relief capacity calculation that conditions, including changes to piping or equipment, had\nnot changed the existing relief capacity.\nWV PSC discovered this omission of required records, which apparently existed since the\ncompletion of the construction of the compressor station in 2008.\nThis is a repeat violation of 192.709(c) as assessed in CPF 1-2009-1006.\n4. § 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and M of this\npart must be retained for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is\ncompleted, whichever is longer.\nPursuant to §192.745 (a), DTI failed to produce records of emergency valve inspection and testing\nfor either well BW7752 or line H21796 for 2007 and 2008.\nSubsequent to the inspection, DTI still did not provide these records as requested by the WV PSC\nRequest for Specific Information dated October 29, 2009.\n5. §192.163 Compressor stations: Design and construction.\n(e) Electrical facilities. Electrical equipment and wiring installed in compressor stations must\nconform to the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, so far as that code is applicable.\nPursuant to National Electrical Code (NEC) code NFPA 70 – 2005: section 230.95, DTI did not\nprovide any documentation of the ground fault protection performance tests for the electrical\ncomponents in the Wolf Run compressor station, specifically, for the 9 micro turbines, alternators,\nand transformers.\nDTI did not provide any documentation of the performance tests as requested by the WV PSC.\n120121013_NOPV_PCP_PCO_ 05142012 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-1013\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for\neach violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related\nseries of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocumentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be\npreliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $150,800 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $43,700\n2 $21,200\n3 $37,100\n4 $27,600\n5 $21,200\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to DTI. Please\nrefer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised\nthat all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this\nconstitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-\n1013 on each document you submit, and please whenever possible, provide a signed PDF copy in\nelectronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent\non a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, P.E.\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: WV PSC\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120121013_NOPV_PCP_PCO_ 05142012 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-1013\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 the\npipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the DTI failure to seal the\nelectrical conduit to the enclosure for Panel K in the Wolf Run compressor station,\nDTI must install the required electrical seal.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to DTI failure to perform\ncommissioning tests for compressor relief devices at Wolf Run compressor station,\nDTI must perform the required tests at the Wolf Run compressor station.\n3. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to the DTI failure to perform\nrequired ground fault performance tests, DTI must perform the required tests at the\nWolf Run compressor station.\n4. DTI shall have 90 days from the receipt of a Final Order to complete the\nrequirements for Item Numbers 1, 2, and 5 of the Notice.\n5. It is requested (not mandated) that DTI maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Byron E. Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120121013_NOPV_PCP_PCO_ 05142012 Page 4 of 4","truncated":false,"body_characters":30041}