{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120073006","title":"NATIONAL GRID LNG, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-10-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 193.2605, 193.2711.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120073006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120073006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120073006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120073006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NATIONAL GRID LNG, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 193.2605,  193.2711. The case was opened on 2007-10-22 and is reported as closed as of 2010-01-20. Proposed civil penalty: $55,000. Assessed civil penalty: $41,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120073006_Final Order_12292009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120073006/120073006_Final%20Order_12292009.pdf\n\n120073006_Final Order_12292009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120073006/120073006_Final%20Order_12292009_text.pdf\n\n120073006_NOPV PCP_10222007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120073006/120073006_NOPV%20PCP_10222007.pdf\n\n120073006_Request_for_Hearing_and_Operator_Response_11192007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120073006/120073006_Request_for_Hearing_and_Operator_Response_11192007.pdf\n\n120073006_Final Order_12292009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 29 2009\nWilliam J. Akley\nSenior Vice President\nNational Grid LNG, L.P.\nOne Metrotech Center\nBrooklyn, NY 11201\nRe: CPF No. 1-2007-3006\nDear Mr. Akley:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a reduced civil penalty of $41,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the\nFinal Order constitutes service of that document 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 (by email): Renita Bivins, Senior Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA\nByron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nThomas P. O’Neill, Senior Counsel, National Grid LNG, L.P.\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2464 5812]\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 )\nNational Grid LNG, L.P., ) CPF No. 1-2007-3006\nf/k/a KeySpan LNG, L.P., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring October and December 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the liquefied natural gas (LNG)\nfacilities and records of KeySpan LNG, L.P., in Providence, Rhode Island. On or about August\n24, 2007, KeySpan LNG, L.P., was acquired by National Grid P.L.C. Subsequent to this\nacquisition, KeySpan LNG, L.P., was renamed National Grid LNG, L.P. (Respondent or\nNational Grid).\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 22, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent\nhad violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 193.2605 and 193.2711 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$55,000 for the alleged violations.\nNational Grid responded to the Notice by letter dated November 19, 2007 (Response). National\nGrid contested all of the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was held on August 19,\n2008, in Washington, D.C., with Jim Curry, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding.\nRespondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a closing\nresponse by letter dated September 16, 2008 (Closing).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 193.2605 Maintenance procedures.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written procedures\nfor the maintenance of each component, including any required corrosion\ncontrol. The procedures must include:\n(1) The details of the inspections or tests determined under paragraph (a)\nof this section and their frequency of performance; and\n(2) A description of other actions necessary to maintain the LNG plant\naccording to the requirements of [Subpart G-Maintenance].\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605, by failing to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for the maintenance of each component of its Providence LNG\nfacility. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its LIM 7.6 Water\nGlycol System procedures for the protection of that system from internal corrosion.\nRespondent’s procedures required it to conduct an annual inspection of the water glycol system.\nAs part of the inspection, Respondent was required to send a glycol sample to a laboratory for an\nassessment of its chemical composition and to determine whether any supplementary chemicals\nwere necessary. Respondent’s procedure also required the company to prepare and execute a\nmaintenance plan based on the results of the inspection, including the glycol analysis. The\nNotice alleged that Respondent failed to prepare and execute a maintenance plan based on the\nresults of the company’s 2005 and 2006 glycol analyses.\nIn its Response, National Grid contested this allegation of violation and offered information\nsupporting a reduction in the proposed civil penalty. Before the hearing, National Grid and OPS\nmet to discuss this Item and, at the hearing, Respondent indicated that it was no longer contesting\nthe allegation. OPS indicated, in turn, that it could support elimination of the proposed civil\npenalty relating to this Item. Finally, Respondent indicated that it would modify certain\nmonitoring and maintenance procedures at issue in the Notice. The Director, Eastern Region,\nhas reviewed National Grid’s modified procedures after the hearing and found them to be\nadequate.\nAccordingly, upon considering all of the evidence I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2605 by failing to develop a maintenance plan based on the results of the 2005 and 2006\nglycol tests, as required by the company’s manual of written procedures.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2711, which states:\n§ 193.2711 Personnel health.\nEach operator shall follow a written plan to verify that personnel\nassigned operating, maintenance, security, or fire protection duties at the LNG\nplant do not have any physical condition that would impair performance of\ntheir assigned duties. The plan must be designed to detect both readily\nobservable disorders, such as physical handicaps or injury, and conditions\nrequiring professional examination for discovery.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2711 by failing to follow its written\nplan for verifying that personnel who were assigned security duties at the company’s LNG plant\ndid not have any physical conditions that would impair performance of their assigned duties.\nRespondent’s procedures required that all new personnel pass a physical exam before being\noffered a job at the LNG facility. The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to conduct physical\nexams of certain security contractor personnel before they began employment. In its Response,\nNational Grid contested this allegation of violation. However, during the hearing, National Grid\nclarified that it was not contesting the allegation but simply offering information to support a\nreduction of the civil penalty.\nAccordingly, upon considering all of the evidence, I find that National Grid violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2711 by failing to follow its written plan for verifying that personnel assigned operating,\nmaintenance, security, or fire protection duties at the LNG plan did not have any physical\nconditions that would impair performance of their assigned duties\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,\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 $55,000 for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 193.2605 and 193.2711.\nNotice Item 1 proposed a civil penalty of $14,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605, for\nRespondent’s failure to follow its manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each\ncomponent of its Providence LNG facility. As noted above, National Grid admitted at the\nhearing that a violation had occurred, while OPS acknowledged that it could support elimination\nof the proposed penalty. I agree that there is a basis for elimination of the penalty. The record\nshows that National Grid took action to respond to the results of an initial laboratory analysis by\nsending a second sample to the laboratory for testing, and by later adding certain chemicals to its\nwater glycol system based on those test results. While Respondent admittedly did not follow its\nprocedures for preparing a maintenance plan that addressed the laboratory tests, National Grid\ndid take reasonable actions to maintain its water/glycol system. On the basis of Respondent’s\ngood faith efforts to comply with the regulation, I hereby withdraw the penalty associated with\nItem 1.\n\n\n\n4\nNotice Item 2 proposed a civil penalty of $41,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2711, for\nRespondent’s failure to follow its written plan for verifying that personnel who had been\nassigned security duties at the company’s LNG plant did not have any physical conditions that\nwould impair performance of their assigned duties. In its Response, at the hearing, and in its\nClosing, National Grid presented several arguments for elimination of the proposed penalty,\nnone of which are persuasive.\nFirst, National Grid contended that § 193.2711 did not apply to the security personnel of its\ncontractor because National Grid had hired them to perform duties “supplemental” to\nRespondent’s existing personnel. National Grid argued that this was a good faith mistake. I find\nthis argument unpersuasive in light of the text of § 193.2711. The regulation draws no\ndistinction among personnel based upon regarding the nature or type of security duties that they\nperform. Pipeline safety depends on the thorough examination of all personnel, “supplemental”\nor otherwise, to determine whether they have physical conditions that would impair performance\nof their assigned duties.\nSecond, Respondent argued that it mistakenly believed that the contractor had required its\nemployees to undergo physical examinations that met code requirements. However, at the\nhearing, Respondent acknowledged that its contracting standards did not cover physical exams\nrequired by the regulation. Therefore, I reject this argument.\nFinally, Respondent argued that the supplemental guards were not required by the regulations\nand were added after an incident occurred at another KeySpan LNG facility in order to provide\nan extra layer of security. Here, again, the regulation draws no distinction between minimal and\n“supplemental” security personnel nor one based upon their different functions. If National Grid\nchose to hire additional personnel to work in proximity to its sensitive LNG facility, then such\nindividuals had to be properly screened to ensure they could perform their duties. PHMSA\nregards adequate security as essential to the protection of LNG infrastructure and a key\nresponsibility of each operator.\nRespondent raised other miscellaneous arguments for reduction of the penalty but none warrants\nfurther discussion here. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence and the\narguments presented, I hereby assess Respondent a civil penalty of $41,000 for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 193.2711.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for Items 1 and\n2, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $41,000.\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 this payment 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, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\n\n\n\n5\nFailure to pay the $41,000 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 United\nStates District Court.\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 received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":14571}