{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120131026","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":"2013-11-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.751(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120131026.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120131026.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120131026","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120131026","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.751(a). The case was opened on 2013-11-20 and is reported as closed as of 2015-10-08. Proposed civil penalty: $30,400. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120131026_Final Order_10082015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Final%20Order_10082015.pdf\n\n120131026_Final Order_10082015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Final%20Order_10082015_text.pdf\n\n120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013.pdf\n\n120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013_text.pdf\n\n120131026_Operator Request Hearing_Case Files_01162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Operator%20Request%20Hearing_Case%20Files_01162014.pdf\n\n120131026_Final Order_10082015_text.pdf\n\nOctober 8, 2015\nMr. Thomas F. Farrell, President\nDominion Resources, Inc.\n120 Tredegar Street\nRichmond, Virginia 23219\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-1026\nDear Mr. Farrell:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws a single\nallegation of violation against your subsidiary, Dominion Transmission, Inc., along with the\nassociated civil penalty. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by\ncertified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Brian C. Sheppard, Vice President, Pipeline Operations, Dominion Transmission,\nInc., 925 White Oaks Boulevard, Bridgeport, West Virginia 26330\nMs. Jacqueline Wilson, Counsel, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 925 White Oaks\nBoulevard, Bridgeport, West Virginia 26330\nMs. Lois M. Henry, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street,\nRichmond, Virginia 23219\nMs. Susan A. Olenchuk, Counsel for Dominion Transmission, Inc., VanNess Feldman,\n1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20007\nMr. Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, OPS\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 )\n)\n)\nDominion Transmission, Inc., )\na subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., )\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\n) CPF No. 1-2013-1026\nFINAL ORDER\nOn January 10-13, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the West Virginia\nPublic Service Commission (WV PSC), acting as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline\nsafety inspection of the facilities and records of Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI or\nRespondent), relating to the company’s Cornwell and Chelyan operating areas, as well as its\nCornwell and LL Tonkin compressor stations, all located in West Virginia. DTI is the interstate\ngas transmission subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., and operates 7,800 miles of pipeline in\nOhio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland and Virginia.1\nAs a result of the inspection, by letter dated November 20, 2013, the Director, Eastern Region,\nOPS (Director), issued to Respondent a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that DTI had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a)\nand assessing a civil penalty of $30,400 for the alleged violation. The warning item required no\nfurther action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face future potential\nenforcement action.\nOn December 4, 2013, Respondent requested the case file and an extension of time to respond to\nthe Notice. On December 13, 2013, PHMSA granted DTI’s requests. By letter dated January\n16, 2014, DTI contested the allegation of violation, sought elimination or reduction of the\nproposed penalty, and requested a hearing. On May 16, 2014, DTI withdrew its request for a\nhearing. By letter dated June 6, 2014, DTI then submitted a formal response to the Notice\n(Response). Respondent continued to contest the allegation of violation, offered additional\ninformation in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be\neliminated.\n1 See https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/natural-gas/dominion-transmission-inc.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-1026\nPage 2\nFINDING 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. § 192.605(a), 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.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DTI failed to lock the isolation valves\non two suction scrubber relief valves located at the Cornwell Compressor Station, as required by\nthe company’s procedure, SOP 210/02, Pressure Limiting, Regulating and Compressor Stations\n– Inspections and Tests, Revision Date 08/01/2011, Section VI Paragraph A.2 (SOP 210/02).\nThe Notice references this procedure, which states:\n“The final inspection should include the following…\nRestoration of all locking and security devices to proper position…\nNOTE:…Isolation valves under relief devices should be secured in the\nopen position in a manner that prevents operation by unauthorized\npersonnel.”\nThe Notice alleged that two unlocked isolation valves were observed on two suction scrubber\nvalves during the WV PSC inspection, in violation of this procedure. The valves were locked by\nDTI after the inspection.\nIn its Response, DTI acknowledged that the isolation valves in question were not locked at the\ntime of the inspection, but argued that it was not a violation of § 192.605(a). DTI presented\nthree arguments: (1) that OPS had not shown that DTI failed to comply with its procedure\ndelineated in SOP 210/02; (2) that the pertinent language in SOP 210/02 was permissive, not\nmandatory; and (3) that no other regulation required DTI to lock the isolation valves.\nTaking these in reverse order, in determining whether Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a), I do not consider it relevant whether a PHMSA regulation requires locks on\nisolation valves; the regulation involved here, § 192.605(a), pertains solely to whether the\ncompany followed its own procedure regarding the securing of isolation valves.\n2\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-1026\nPage 3\nUpon consideration of all the evidence, I am convinced that SOP 210/02 itself does not itself\nrequire that all isolation valves be kept “secured in an open position in a manner that prevents\noperation by unauthorized personnel.” Clearly, the intent of this language is that isolation valves\nunder relief devices should be secured in an open position to “prevent operation by unauthorized\npersonnel.” Here, the word “should” unmistakably implies a duty, not a mere suggestion, that\nsuch valves be kept from being operated by someone who lacks the authority to open or close\nthem.\nHowever, such intent is arguably offset by the company’s own Regulator & Over-Pressure\nProtection Inspection form,\n2 which asks the question: “How are valves that could affect the\nproper operation of this device protected from unauthorized operation?” Three response options\nare provided on the company’s valve inspection form: “Chain/Lock,” “Locked Fence,” or\n“Locked Building.” The question and the three alternative answers clearly suggest there are\nalternative means of protecting the valves from improper operation. When the company’s\nprocedure and the form are considered together, I am not convinced that SOP 210/02 requires the\nisolation valves at issue in this case to always be secured in an open position.\nWhile DTI’s procedure, particularly when read in conjunction with the form, is ambiguous and\nshould be clarified, I cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that the company failed to\nfollow SOP 210/02 in this particular instance. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence\nand the legal issues presented, I order that Item 1 and the associated civil penalty be withdrawn.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.751 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to take steps to\nminimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where\nthe presence of gas constitutes a hazard of fire or explosion.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\n2 Response, at Exhibit D.\n3\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-1026\nPage 4\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\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":10293}