{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120123001","title":"HOPKINTON LNG CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 193.2605, 193.2605(b), 193.2609, 193.2625(a), 193.2639(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120123001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120123001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120123001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120123001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HOPKINTON LNG CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 193.2605,  193.2605(b),  193.2609,  193.2625(a),  193.2639(a). The case was opened on 2012-04-02 and is reported as closed as of 2014-12-17. Proposed civil penalty: $64,600. Assessed civil penalty: $19,688. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120123001_Amended Final Order_03052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Amended%20Final%20Order_03052014.pdf\n\n120123001_Amended Final Order_03052014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Amended%20Final%20Order_03052014_text.pdf\n\n120123001_Closure Letter_12172014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Closure%20Letter_12172014.pdf\n\n120123001_Closure Letter_12172014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Closure%20Letter_12172014_text.pdf\n\n120123001_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11242014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11242014.pdf\n\n120123001_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11242014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11242014_text.pdf\n\n120123001_Final Order_02032014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Final%20Order_02032014.pdf\n\n120123001_Final Order_02032014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Final%20Order_02032014_text.pdf\n\n120123001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04022012_text.pdf\n\n120123001_Operator Response and Withdrawel of Hearing Request_05302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Operator%20Response%20and%20Withdrawel%20of%20Hearing%20Request_05302012.pdf\n\n120123001_Operator_Petition_for_Reconsideration_03262014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Operator_Petition_for_Reconsideration_03262014.pdf\n\n120123001_Final Order_02032014_text.pdf\n\nFEBRUARY 3, 2014\nMr. Tom May\nPresident\nNSTAR Electric & Gas Corp.\nOne NSTAR Way\nWestwood, MA 02090\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-3001\nDear Mr. May:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $32,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Hopkinton LNG Corp., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate 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. Paul J. Zohorsky, Acting Vice President, Gas Operations, NSTAR Electric & Gas\nCorp./Hopkinton LNG Corp.\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nHopkinton LNG Corp., ) CPF No. 1-2012-3001\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 4, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities of Hopkinton LNG Corp.\n(Hopkinton or Respondent), in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. Hopkinton, a subsidiary of NSTAR\nElectric and Gas Corp.,\n1 operates liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Hopkinton and\nAcushnet, Massachusetts, to supplement pipeline supply during winter months.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 2, 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 Hopkinton had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 193,\nassessing a civil penalty of $64,600 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nHopkinton responded to the Notice by letter dated April 24, 2012, requesting a hearing and\nadditional time to respond to the Notice. On May 30, 2012, Hopkinton provided its response to\nthe Notice, contested the allegations, presented information seeking elimination of the proposed\npenalty, and withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby authorizing the entry of this Final Order\nwithout further notice.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as follows:\n1 NSTAR is an operating company of Northeast Utilities. See http://www.nstar.com/about_nstar/, last viewed\nDecember 16, 2013.\n2 See http://www.nstar.com/about nstar/nonreg.asp (last viewed December 16, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609, which states:\n§ 193.2609 Support systems.\nEach support system or foundation of each component must be\ninspected for any detrimental change that could impair support.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609 by failing to inspect some of\nits support systems and foundations for detrimental changes that could impair support.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed in 2009 and 2010 to inspect some of the\nsupport systems and foundations at the Hopkinton LNG facility for detrimental changes. In\nsupport of its position, PHMSA provided eight photographs showing areas it believed showed\nchanges to the support systems and foundation deterioration more severe than what was\ndocumented in the inspection conducted by Hopkinton in 2010.\nIn its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation of violation, providing pictures and\ninformation of the support systems that PHMSA had asserted were showing signs of\ndeterioration and detrimental change. Respondent argued that while the pictures may show some\nsuperficial damage to several support systems, there was no change that could impair support of\nthe pipeline system. Hopkinton also argued that its reports show that in 2009 and 2010, all of the\nsupport systems and/or foundations were, in fact, inspected. While PHMSA may not agree with\nthe rankings Hopkinton gave to the support systems and need for repair, the evidence shows that\nthey were indeed inspected.\nHopkinton has also provided additional information regarding the areas PHMSA asserted\nshowed detrimental changes. After reviewing the photographs and other information provided\nby Hopkinton, I find that the alleged changes to the support structures were only superficial.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Hopkinton inspected each support\nsystem or foundation of each component for any detrimental change pursuant to § 193.2609 and\nhereby order that Item 1, along with its related penalty and corrective action, be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a), which states:\n§ 193.2625 Corrosion protection.\n(a) Each operator shall determine which components could, unless\ncorrosion is controlled, have their integrity or reliability adversely affected\nby external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended\nservice life.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a) by failing to determine\nwhich metallic components could, unless corrosion were controlled, have their integrity or\nreliability adversely affected by external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended\nservice life. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton had never determined, during the\nperiod since their installation in 1970, whether the carbon steel bottoms of three LNG tanks at\nthe Hopkinton LNG facility had been adversely affected by external corrosion.\n\n\n\n3\nIn its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation, arguing that it had made a determination,\non two separate occasions, that the bottoms on the three tanks were not susceptible to\natmospheric corrosion: first, when it selected the initial design and installed the tanks in the\n1970’s; second, when it reconfirmed the tank bottoms’ integrity in 2009. In support of its\nposition, Hopkinton provided detailed information regarding the construction of the tanks and\ntwo affidavits from employees declaring that they had initiated and ultimately made a\ndetermination regarding whether the tank bottoms would be susceptible to atmospheric\ncorrosion.\nHopkinton failed, however, to provide any written documentation showing it had actually\nconducted an engineering evaluation or assessment resulting in a formal determination that the\nthree tanks were not susceptible to atmospheric corrosion. Instead, Respondent merely\nsubmitted information showing its conclusion that there was no risk of atmospheric corrosion.\nImplicit in the regulation is a requirement that any determination be properly documented, using\nacceptable engineering methods and based on sound engineering judgment.\nFurthermore, even if we assume, arguendo, that Hopkinton did perform some sort of informal\nengineering review or analysis, it is essential under Subpart G of Part 193 that such a process be\ndocumented. Under 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(c)(2), an operator must keep records showing each\ntest, survey, or inspection conducted under Subpart G to show the adequacy of the corrosion\ncontrol measures taken to protect against the threat of corrosion. I do not believe, in this\ninstance, that the evidence provided by Respondent is sufficient to demonstrate the company\nmade an adequate determination that the integrity or reliability of the three tank bottoms could\nnot be adversely affected by corrosion.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2625(a) by failing to adequately determine whether its three LNG tanks were susceptible\nto atmospheric corrosion.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 193.2605 Maintenance procedures.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written\nprocedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required\ncorrosion control. The procedures must include:\n(1) The details of the inspection or tests determined under paragraph\n(a) of this section and their frequency of performance; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to follow a\nmanual of written procedures for the maintenance of each component of its system, including\nany corrosion control. Specifically, it alleged that Hopkinton’s procedures failed to prescribe\nhow prompt corrective or remedial action would be taken whenever the company learned, either\nby inspection or otherwise, that atmospheric, external or internal corrosion was not being\ncontrolled as required by Subpart G. The Notice further alleged that Hopkinton’s 2005 and 2008\n\n\n\n4\natmospheric corrosion monitoring inspections had revealed that crevice corrosion existed where\nthe pipe was resting directly on a pipe support or trestle, yet the company had no specific\nprocedure to deal with this type of specific situation.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to have\nwritten procedures setting forth the action needed to be taken when crevice corrosion issue had\nbeen identified.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a), which states:\n§ 193.2639 Maintenance records.\n(a) Each operator shall keep a record at each LNG plant of the date\nand type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to\nmeet the requirements of this part. For each LNG facility that is designed\nand constructed after March 31, 2000, the operator shall also maintain\nrelated periodic inspection and testing records that NFPA 59A\n(incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013) requires. Maintenance\nrecords, whether required by this part or NFPA 59A, must be kept for a\nperiod not less than five years.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a) by failing to keep a record\nof the date and type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to meet the\nrequirements of Part 193. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed to keep a record\nof the atmospheric corrosion observations made by company personnel at pipe/soil interfaces. It\nfurther alleged that Hopkinton did not document any atmospheric corrosion procedures at these\nparticular points, as required in Section 3.6C of the company’s own Corrosion Control\nProcedures. In support of its position, PHMSA identified two corrosion reports from 2005 and\n2008 that did not conform to Section 3.6 of Hopkinton’s own procedures. Additionally, PHMSA\nnoted that during its inspection in 2010, areas of corrosion were present that had not been\nidentified in the company’s earlier corrosion surveys.\nHopkinton contested this allegation of violation. Specifically, Respondent pointed to its\nOctober 28, 2005 and October 8, 2008 records detailing the findings of its atmospheric corrosion\ninspections. 3 Hopkinton’s records indicate that an inspection had occurred in 2008 and noted\nvarious areas in need of attention. It is Hopkinton’s position that the records satisfy the\nrequirement in § 193.2639(a) that it record the date and type of each maintenance activity\nperformed under Part 193.\nI disagree. Although the 2005 and 2008 records show that Hopkinton conducted corrosion\ninspections in a timely matter, they do not show that the inspections gave “particular attention at\nsoil-to-air interfaces,” as required under the company’s own procedures under § 193.2605, and\nthat the company recorded information of such observations during the inspection.\n3 See, Violation Report Exhibit A-4 and A-6.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2639(a) by failing to keep a record of the atmospheric corrosion observations made by\ncompany personnel at pipe/soil interfaces.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b)(1), as quoted\nabove, by failing to follow a manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each\ncomponent of its system, including any corrosion control. Specifically, it alleged that Hopkinton\nfailed to follow its own procedures, namely, Corrosion Procedures, Section 3.6C, which\nrequired that “[p]ipelines exposed to the atmosphere will be inspected at least once every three\nyears, at intervals not to exceed thirty-nine months” and that particular attention be paid to areas\nunder thermal insulation. According to the Notice, Hopkinton failed to follow these procedures\nbecause not all pipe segments exposed to the atmosphere were inspected every three years and\nbecause the company’s procedures failed to specify a schedule establishing the frequency of\ninspections.4\nIn its Response, Hopkinton contended that its actions were within full compliance of § 193.2605\nand its own procedures for monitoring corrosion control. Respondent contended: a) its\nprocedures only required the inspection of its insulated pipeline when the insulation was\nremoved; b) it was not required to remove the insulation to inspect for corrosion; c) removal of\nthe insulation for routine inspections would be detrimental to the pipeline; and d) based upon the\ntype of pipe material used, i.e., stainless steel, it would not be subject to atmospheric corrosion.\nI do not find these arguments convincing. First, PHMSA has not asserted that Hopkinton must\nremove all of its insulation every three years to inspect components for atmospheric corrosion.\nInstead, the Violation Report specifically references Section 3.6C of Respondent’s own\ncorrosion procedures, which requires that the company pay particular attention to piping under\nthermal insulation. Hopkinton’s 2008 report notes that it didn’t inspect any areas that were\ncovered with thermal insulation. Second, I would note that there are inconsistencies in\nRespondent’s procedures. Section 3.6C states that the components covered by thermal insulation\nare to be paid particular attention, while Section 3.6E states that the components are only to be\ninspected when the insulation is removed. These procedural inconsistencies, however, do not\nnegate the requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605 and § 193.2635(d).\nThird, § 193.2605 requires operators to periodically inspect their LNG plant and components.\nThe inspection of any component protected from atmospheric corrosion must be conducted at\nleast every three years. The regulation is silent as to the issue of whether all of the insulation\nmust be removed for the inspection, but it clearly states that each component must be inspected\nfor atmospheric corrosion and the company’s own procedures require that particular attention be\ngiven to pipe under thermal insulation. Fourth, the regulation makes no distinction between\npipelines made with different material, stainless steel or otherwise. As noted in Hopkinton’s\n2008 inspection report, it did not inspect components for atmospheric corrosion that were\ninsulated. Therefore, Hopkinton was in violation of its own procedures for failing to conduct\ninspections of components under thermal insulation at intervals not exceeding three years.\n4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 2, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 3.\n\n\n\n6\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2605 by failing to follow a manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each\ncomponent of its system, including any corrosion control.\nThese findings of violation contained in Items 2, 3, and 5 will be considered prior offenses in any\nsubsequent enforcement action 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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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 $64,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2609, for failing to inspect some of its support systems and foundations to identify\ndetrimental changes that could impair support. As noted above, I found that Hopkinton did\ninspect each support system or foundation of each component for any detrimental change\npursuant to § 193.2609. Based upon such finding, I hereby withdraw the proposed penalty for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2605, for failing to follow a manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each\ncomponent of its system, including any corrosion control. As discussed above, I found that\nRespondent failed to inspect under all of its thermal insulation for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion every three years, despite the express language contained in Section 3C of its\nOperator’s Corrosion Procedures. Hopkinton’s failure to properly inspect portions of its pipeline\nthat are thermally insulated could have severe consequences. Corrosion, left unchecked, can lead\nto pipeline leaks, causing extensive property damage, injuries and clean-up costs. The fact that\nno accident occurred in this instance is reflected in the penalty being assessed in this instance.\nWhile Hopkinton contends that its current insulation inspection practices are appropriate and\nevidence of its good-faith efforts, its own inspection report from 2008 states that “pipelines\ncovered with insulation were not inspected.” Therefore, I find no basis for a reduction of the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $32,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605.\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 $32,100.\n\n\n\n7\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 $32,100 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, 3, 4 and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §193. Item 1 has been withdrawn so no compliance terms are included in\nthis Order. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 193.2625(a) (Item 2), Respondent must\ndetermine if the outer LNG tank bottoms could have their integrity or reliability\nadversely affected by external corrosion unless external corrosion were controlled.\nHopkinton has stated that it has already commissioned R.A. Hoffman Engineering to\nperform an assessment and determination regarding the three LNG tank bottoms.\nRespondent shall complete the determination within 180 days of the receipt of the\nFinal Order, and submit it to the Regional Director for review. If necessary,\nHopkinton shall establish a remediation plan based upon that determination.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 193.2605 (Item 3), Respondent must incorporate\ninto its corrosion procedures empirical measurements relating its Good, Fair, and\nPoor evaluations to pipe-wall loss, with appropriate remedial actions specified to deal\nwith these severity ratings. This shall be completed within 90 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order, followed by a reevaluation of its pipelines on supports or trestles within\n180 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 193.2639(a) (Item 4), Respondent must expand\nits procedures to identify the relevant pipelines and to describe the monitoring process\nof the soil-to-air interface of all pipelines subject to Part 193. This shall be completed\nwithin 60 days of receipt of the Final Order. Within 180 days of the receipt of the\n\n\n\n8\nFinal Order, Hopkinton shall reexamine its pipe-to-soil interfaces for the presence of\natmospheric corrosion. Should remedial action be deemed necessary, it shall be\naccomplished in accordance with the procedures established in Item 3 above.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 193.2605(b) (Item 5), Respondent must revise\nSection 3.6E of its Corrosion Procedures to require monitoring of all pipe exposed to\nthe atmosphere, at intervals no greater than 3 years. The procedure shall make\nprovisions for inspecting under thermally insulated pipe. The procedures shall be\nrevised within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order. Hopkinton shall inspect all\npiping under thermal insulation within 12 months of issuance of the Final Order.\nShould remedial action be deemed necessary, it shall be accomplished in accordance\nwith the revised procedures established for Item 3 above.\n5. It is requested (not mandated) that Hopkinton LNG maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans procedures, studies and analysis; and 2) total associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\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 $200,000 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. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the 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\n120123001_Amended Final Order_03052014_text.pdf\n\nMARCH 5, 2014\nMr. Tom May\nPresident\nNSTAR Electric & Gas Corp.\nOne NSTAR Way\nWestwood, MA 02090\nRE: In the Matter of Hopkinton LNG Corp. [CPF No. 1-2012-3001]\nDear Mr. May:\nI am writing in further reference to the Final Order, dated February 3, 2014, that was issued by\nPHMSA in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary, Hopkinton LNG Corp. We\nsubsequently received a letter, dated February 14, 2014, from James B. Curry, Esq., counsel for\nHopkinton, requesting an extension of time to file a Petition for Reconsideration in the case.\nPrior to receipt of Mr. Curry’s letter, however, PHMSA staff had already discovered an error in\nParagraph No. 4 (relating to Item #5 of the Notice of Probable Violation) of the Compliance\nOrder section of the Final Order, relating to the inspection of pipe under thermal insulation. We\nare therefore issuing the enclosed Amended Final Order to correct the error. All other provisions\nof the original Final Order, including the assessed penalty of $31,100 and the remaining\ncompliance terms, remain in effect.\nThe issuance of the Amended Final Order means that Hopkinton will have 20 days from the date\nof receipt of this letter to file a Petition for Reconsideration if it still wishes to do so.\nAccordingly, counsel’s request for an extension of time is no longer needed and is therefore\ndenied as moot.\nPlease accept my apologies for any inconvenience this error may have caused.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: OPS Compliance Registry\nMr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nJames B. Curry, Esquire, VanNess Feldman, LLP, Counsel for LNG Hopkinton Corp.,\n1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, Seventh Floor, NW Washington, D.C., 20007\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)\nHopkinton LNG Corp., ) CPF No. 1-2012-3001\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nAMENDED FINAL ORDER\nOn October 4, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities of Hopkinton LNG Corp.\n(Hopkinton or Respondent) in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. Hopkinton, a subsidiary of NSTAR\nElectric and Gas Corp.,\n1 operates liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Hopkinton and\nAcushnet, Massachusetts, to supplement pipeline supply during winter months.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 2, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, a Proposed Civil Penalty and a\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Hopkinton had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 193,\nassessing a civil penalty of $64,600 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nHopkinton responded to the Notice by letter dated April 24, 2012, requesting a hearing and\nadditional time to respond to the Notice. On May 30, 2012, Hopkinton provided its response to\nthe Notice, contested the allegations, presented information seeking elimination of the proposed\npenalty, and withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby authorized the entry of this Final Order\nwithout further notice.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as follows:\n1 NSTAR is an operating company of Northeast Utilities. See http://www.nstar.com/about_nstar/, last viewed\nDecember 16, 2013.\n2 See http://www.nstar.com/about_nstar/nonreg.asp, last viewed December 16, 2013.\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609, which states:\n§ 193.2609 Support systems.\nEach support system or foundation of each component must be\ninspected for any detrimental change that could impair support.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609 by failing to inspect some of\nits support systems and foundations for detrimental changes that could impair support.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed in 2009 and 2010 to inspect some of the\nsupport systems and foundations at its LNG facility for detrimental changes. In support of its\nposition PHMSA provided eight photographs showing areas it believed showed changes to the\nsupport systems that were not listed in Hopkinton’s reports.\nIn its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation of violation, providing pictures and\ninformation of the support systems that PHMSA had asserted were showing signs of\ndeterioration and detrimental change. Respondent argued that while the pictures may show some\nsuperficial damage to several support systems, there was no change that could impair support of\nthe pipeline system. Hopkinton also argued that its reports show that in 2009 and 2010 all of the\nsupport systems and/or foundations were, in fact, inspected. While PHMSA may not agree with\nthe rankings Hopkinton gave to the support systems and need for repair, the evidence shows that\nthey were indeed inspected.\nHopkinton has also provided additional information regarding the areas PHMSA asserted\nshowed detrimental changes. After reviewing the pictures provided by Hopkinton, the additional\ninformation it provided regarding those pictures and the initial inspection reports, I find that the\nalleged changes to the support structures were only superficial.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Hopkinton inspected each support\nsystem or foundation of each component for any detrimental change pursuant to § 193.2609 and\nhereby order that Item 1, along with its related penalty and corrective action, be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a), which states:\n§ 193.2625 Corrosion protection.\n(a) Each operator shall determine which components could, unless\ncorrosion is controlled, have their integrity or reliability adversely affected\nby external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended\nservice life.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a) by not determining which\nmetallic components could, unless corrosion is controlled, have their integrity or reliability\nadversely affected by external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended service\nlife. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton has never determined, during the period\nsince their installation in 1970, whether the carbon steel bottoms of three LNG tanks had been\nadversely affected by external corrosion.\n\n\n\n3\nIn its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation, arguing that it had made a determination,\non two separate occasions, that the bottoms on the three tanks were not susceptible to\natmospheric corrosion, first, when it selected the initial design and installed the tanks in the\n1970’s and, second, in 2009. In support of its position, Hopkinton provided detailed information\nregarding the construction of the tanks and two affidavits from employees declaring that they had\ninitiated and ultimately made a determination regarding whether the tank bottoms would be\nsusceptible to atmospheric corrosion.\nHopkinton failed, however, to provide any written documentation showing that it had actually\nconducted an evaluation or assessment and had ultimately made a determination that the three\ntanks are not susceptible to atmospheric corrosion. Respondent merely submitted information\nsuggesting there was no atmospheric corrosion, but no final determination.\nEven if we assume, arguendo, that Hopkinton did perform some sort of informal engineering\nreview or analysis, it is essential under Subpart G of Part 193 that such a process be documented.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(c)(2), an operator must keep records showing each test, survey, or\ninspection conducted under Subpart G in order to show the adequacy of the corrosion control\nmeasures taken to protect against the threat of corrosion. I do not believe, in this instance, that\nthe evidence provided by Respondent is sufficient to demonstrate the company made an actual\ndetermination that the integrity or reliability of the three tank bottoms could be adversely\naffected by corrosion.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2625(a) by failing to adequately determine whether its three LNG tanks are susceptible to\natmospheric corrosion.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 193.2605 Maintenance procedures.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written\nprocedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required\ncorrosion control. The procedures must include:\n(1) The details of the inspection or tests determined under paragraph\n(a) of this section and their frequency of performance; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to follow a\nmanual of written procedures for the maintenance of each component of its system, including\nany corrosion control. Specifically, it alleged that Hopkinton’s procedures failed to prescribe\nhow prompt corrective or remedial action would be taken whenever the company learned, either\nby inspection or otherwise, that atmospheric, external or internal corrosion was not being\ncontrolled as required by Subpart G. The Notice further alleged that Hopkinton’s 2005 and 2008\natmospheric corrosion monitoring inspections had revealed that crevice corrosion existed where\nthe pipe was resting directly on a pipe support or trestle, yet the company had no specific\nprocedure to deal with this type of specific situation.\n\n\n\n4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to have\nwritten procedures setting forth the action needed to be taken when crevice corrosion issue had\nbeen identified.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a), which states:\n§ 193.2639 Maintenance records.\n(a) Each operator shall keep a record at each LNG plant of the date\nand type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to\nmeet the requirements of this part. For each LNG facility that is designed\nand constructed after March 31, 2000, the operator shall also maintain\nrelated periodic inspection and testing records that NFPA 59A\n(incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013) requires. Maintenance\nrecords, whether required by this part or NFPA 59A, must be kept for a\nperiod not less than five years.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a) by failing to keep a record\nof the date and type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to meet the\nrequirements of Part 193. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed to keep a record\nof the atmospheric corrosion observations made by company personnel at pipe/soil interfaces. It\nfurther alleged that Hopkinton did not document any atmospheric corrosion procedures at these\nparticular points, as required in Section 3.6C of the company’s own Corrosion Control\nProcedures. In support of its position, PHMSA identified two corrosion reports from 2005 and\n2008 that did not conform to Section 3.6 of Hopkinton’s procedures. Additionally, PHMSA\nnoted that during its inspection in 2010, areas of corrosion were present but had not been\nidentified in the company’s earlier corrosion surveys.\nHopkinton contested this allegation of violation, based upon these same corrosion reports from\n2005 and 2008. Specifically, Respondent, pointed to its October 28, 2005 and October 8, 2008\nrecords detailing the findings of its atmospheric corrosion inspections. 3 Hopkinton’s records\nindicate that an inspection occurred in 2008, noting various areas in need of attention. It is\nHopkinton’s position that the records satisfy the requirement in § 193.2639(a) that it record the\ndate and type of each maintenance activity performed under Part 193.\nI disa","truncated":true,"body_characters":73890}