{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120121015","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":"2012-05-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.163(e), 192.603(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120121015","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). The case was opened on 2012-05-29 and is reported as closed as of 2013-09-27. Proposed civil penalty: $174,500. Assessed civil penalty: $43,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120121015_Closure Letter_09272013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_Closure%20Letter_09272013.pdf\n\n120121015_Closure letter_09272013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_Closure%20letter_09272013_text.pdf\n\n120121015_Final Order_07262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_Final%20Order_07262013.pdf\n\n120121015_Final Order_07262013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_Final%20Order_07262013_text.pdf\n\n120121015_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05292012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05292012.pdf\n\n120121015_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05292012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05292012_text.pdf\n\n120121015_Operator Response_06282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121015/120121015_Operator%20Response_06282012.pdf\n\n120121015_Final Order_07262013_text.pdf\n\nJULY 26, 2013\nMr. Thomas F. Farrell, II\nPresident\nDominion Resources Services, Inc.\n701 East Cary St.\nRichmond, VA 23219\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-1015\nDear Mr. Farrell:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $43,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Dominion Transmission, Inc., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. It also\nwithdraws several other allegations of violation in the Notice of Probable Violation.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid\nand the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as 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. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Jeffrey Barger, Senior Vice President, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 445 West Main\nStreet, Clarksburg, WV 26301\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nDominion Transmission, Inc., ) CPF No. 1-2012-1015\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween August 4-6, 2009, and June 22, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the West Virginia Public Service Commission, as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Dominion Transmission, Inc.\n(Dominion or Respondent), in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Dominion is a subsidiary of\nDominion Resources Services, Inc., and operates approximately 7,800 miles of pipeline in six\nstates — 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 29, 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 committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $174,500 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 letters dated June 28, 2012, and July 16, 2012\n(collectively, Response). The company contested the allegations, offered additional information\nin response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), which states:\n§ 192.163 Compressor stations: Design and construction.\n(a) . . .\n1 See https://www.dom.com/business/gas-transmission/ (last accessed on May 10, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\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\nelectrical equipment and wiring at the company’s Bridgeport Compressor Station in\nconformance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), ANSI/NFPA 70. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Dominion failed to comply with NEC Article 501.5(b), which requires operators to\ninstall a conduit seal within 18 inches of the explosion-proof housing for the breaker/starter\nswitch associated with the jacket water circulation pump.\nIn its Response, Dominion argued that Article 501.5(b) is not applicable to the equipment cited\nin the Notice because that article was not included in the 2008 version of the NEC. The 2008\nedition is the version currently incorporated by reference in the pipeline safety standards.\nTherefore, Dominion requested that PHMSA withdraw this item.\nI have reviewed the Notice, the Violation Report, and the Response. The equipment covered by\nthis alleged violation was installed prior to 2000. 2 At the time of the installation, the 1996\nedition of the NEC controlled, as it was the version of the NEC incorporated in the pipeline\nsafety regulations at that time.\n3 Therefore, Dominion was required to comply with the 1996\nedition of the National Electrical Code when it installed the conduit seal, not the 2008 edition.\nRegardless, the two editions are quite similar. Article 501.5(b)(l) of NEC (1996) states: “For\nconnections to explosion proof enclosures that are required to be approved for Class 1 locations,\nseals shall be provided in accordance with [501.5](a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) above.” Further,\nArticle 501.5(a)(l) states that \"[i]n each conduit run entering an enclosure for switches, circuit\nbreakers, fuses, relays, resistors, or other apparatus that may produce enclosure for switches,\ncircuit breakers, fuses, relays, resistors, or other apparatus that may produce arcs, sparks, or high\ntemperatures in normal operation, seals shall be installed within 18 in (457 mm) from such\nenclosures...\" Article 501.15(A)(l) of NEC (2008) states that \"[f]actory-sealed enclosures shall\nnot be considered to serve as a seal for another adjacent explosion proof enclosure that is\nrequired to have a conduit seal. Conduit seals shall be installed within 450 mm (18 in.) from the\nenclosure...\"\nThe record shows that Dominion failed to follow NEC, ANSI/NFPA70 (1996), which was in\neffect at the time the Bridgeport Compressor Station was designed and constructed, and required\nthat seals be installed within 450 mm (18 in.) from the enclosure. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) by failing to\ninstall electrical equipment and wiring at the company’s Bridgeport Compressor Station in\nconformance with the NEC, ANSI/NFPA 70.\n2 Dominion personnel informed OPS during the inspection that the conduit seal was installed prior to 2000. See\nPipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 29, 2012) (on file with PHMSA).\n3 The agency incorporated the 1996 version by Final Rule on June 24, 1996. This particular standard was not\nupdated in Part 192 until 2006, at which time, the agency incorporated the 2005 version of the National Electrical\nCode. In 2010, the agency incorporated the 2008 edition of the NEC.\n\n\n\n3\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), as quoted above,\nby failing to install electrical equipment and wiring at the Bridgeport Compressor Station in\nconformance with the NEC, ANSI/NFPA 70. Specifically, it alleged that Dominion failed to\ninstall proper grounding conductors and systems in conformance with Articles 250.5(b),\n250.42(a), (d), and (f), and 250.81(b) of the NEC. In the Notice, OPS alleged that at the time of\nits inspection, there were no grounding conductors for the micro-turbine generators at the station.\nRespondent contested this probable violation, arguing that the Articles referenced in this Item\nwere not present in NEC (2008), which is the edition currently incorporated by reference in the\npipeline safety regulations. In addition, Dominion stated that it did perform an evaluation of the\ntwo micro-turbine generators and determined that these devices were indeed equipped with\ngrounding conductors. As a result, Dominion requested that this item be withdrawn.\nAfter reviewing the materials submitted with the Response, I agree that Respondent complied\nwith § 192.163(e) because the devices were properly equipped with grounding conductors at the\nestimated date of installation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I am\nwithdrawing Item # 1.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), as quoted above,\nby failing to install electrical equipment and wiring at the Bridgeport Compressor Station in\nconformance with the NEC, ANSI/NFPA 70. Specifically, it alleged that Dominion failed to\ncomply with NEC Article 230.95(c), which requires a performance test when the ground fault\nprotection system is first installed on site, and requires a written record of the test be created.\nOPS alleged that at the time of its inspection, the operator was unable to produce any records of\nthis post-construction performance test.\nDominion first acknowledged that it had been unable to locate the records associated with the\nperformance tests. However, in its supplementary Response dated July 16, 2012, Dominion\ncontended that Article 230.95 was not applicable to the Bridgeport Compressor Station because\n(1) the micro-turbines providing power to the Bridgeport Compressor Station did not deliver\npower from a “serving utility,” as defined in Article 230.1, and (2) the combined rating of the\nmicro-turbines was 200 amperes. Dominion argued that Article 230.95 only requires ground\nfault protection systems for systems rated at 1000 amperes or more. As a result, Dominion\nrequested that this item be withdrawn.\nAfter reviewing the materials submitted with the Response, I agree that this requirement applies\nonly to facilities with a minimum combined rating of 1000 amperes. Dominion’s facility had a\nrating of 200 amperes. Therefore, I am withdrawing Item # 3.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), as quoted above,\nby failing to install electrical equipment and wiring at the Bridgeport Compressor Station in\nconformance with the NEC, ANSI/NFPA 70. Specifically, it alleged that Dominion failed to\n\n\n\n4\nhave grounding conductors with a continuous outer finish that was either solid green or green\nwith one or more yellow stripes. NEC Article 230.57(b) requires that such conductors either be\nsolid green or green with one or more yellow stripes. The grounding wires for the Dominion\nmotor control center for the suction, discharge, and bypass of compressor engine number 1 at the\nBridgeport Compressor Station allegedly had a red continuous outer finish.\nRespondent contested this probable violation, arguing that Article 230.57(b) is not included in\nNEC (2008) and therefore is not applicable to Dominion. In addition, the company confirmed\nthat the wires in question are marked with green tape in compliance with NEC 230.57(b). As a\nresult, Dominion requested that this item be withdrawn.\nAfter reviewing the materials and photographic evidence submitted with the Response, I agree\nthat Respondent has complied with 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) because the wires are marked with\ngreen tape. Therefore, I am withdrawing Item # 4.\nItem 5: 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 procedures established under § 192.605. Dominion had replaced all\nsegments of pipeline TL-260 except for two segments. During the OPS inspection, Dominion\nstaff had stated that the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for the two segments\nhad been determined in accordance with § 192.619(c), but had been unable to provide the\nrelevant MAOP records.\nRespondent contested this alleged violation. Dominion confirmed that the MAOP for the entire\npipeline line was 460 psig, as established under § 192.619(c), and that the supporting MAOP\nrecords were in fact provided to the West Virginia inspector during the inspection. In its\nResponse, Dominion provided PHMSA with an additional copy of the records.\nThe records show a discharge pressure of 460 psig that was attained multiple times between\nNovember 4-5, 1969. This documentation substantiates a 460 psig MAOP during the prescribed\nfive-year period required by § 192.619(c)(3). Upon reviewing the materials submitted with the\nResponse, including the MAOP records, I agree that Respondent has complied with\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b). Therefore, I am withdrawing Item #5.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nAs discussed above, I have withdrawn Items #1, 3, 4, and 5. Therefore, the proposed civil\npenalty amounts associated with those items are also withdrawn.\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\n\n\n\n5\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 $43,700 for Item #2.\nItem 2: 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 a conduit seal within 18 inches of the explosion-\nproof housing for the breaker switch at the jacket water circulation pump. I have reviewed the\nproposed civil penalty amount and find that the amount is appropriate, given that non-\ncompliance persisted over nine years (dating back to 2000), and that Dominion’s history of prior\noffenses shows the company had committed eight other violations of the pipeline safety\nregulations in the five years preceding the date of the Notice.4\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $43,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited\nabove, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $43,700.\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 $43,700 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\nAs discussed above, I have withdrawn Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 and therefore the proposed\ncompliance items associated with these items are also withdrawn.\n4 The eight violations are listed in Part D of the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (History of Prior Offenses). See\nalso, CPF No. 1-2011-1011 and CPF No. 1-2010-1006.\n\n\n\n6\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item #2 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in\nthe transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with\nthe applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following\nactions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.163(e) (Item 2), Respondent must install a\nconduit seal for the breaker/starter switch for the jacket water circulation pump\nthat complies with Article 501.15(A)(1) of the National Electrical Code,\nANSI/NFPA 70 (2008) within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order. The seal\nmust be installed within 450 mm (18 inches) from the enclosure.5\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a 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 this 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.\nUnless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of\nthis Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n5 Although Dominion failed to comply with NEC Article 501.5(b) (1996) at the time of the installation, the\nCompliance Order addresses current regulations. Therefore, the conduit seal must be installed in accordance with\ncurrent pipeline safety requirements, namely, Article 501.15(A)(1) of the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70\n(2008). As discussed in the Findings section, the requirements of NEC (2008) and NEC (1996), in terms of the\nconduit seal, are largely the same.\n\n120121015_Closure letter_09272013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nSeptember 27, 2013\nMr. Jeffrey Barger, Sr. VP\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\n445 West Main Street\nClarksburg, WV 26301\nCPF 1-2012-1015\nDear Mr. Barger:\nOn July 26, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Dominion Transmission, Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation\nyou provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you\nhave 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\nCc: David Hippchen, WV PSC","truncated":false,"body_characters":21791}