# HOPKINTON LNG CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120123001_Amended Final Order_03052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Amended%20Final%20Order_03052014.pdf

120123001_Amended Final Order_03052014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Amended%20Final%20Order_03052014_text.pdf

120123001_Closure Letter_12172014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Closure%20Letter_12172014.pdf

120123001_Closure Letter_12172014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Closure%20Letter_12172014_text.pdf

120123001_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11242014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11242014.pdf

120123001_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

120123001_Final Order_02032014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Final%20Order_02032014.pdf

120123001_Final Order_02032014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Final%20Order_02032014_text.pdf

120123001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04022012_text.pdf

120123001_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

120123001_Operator_Petition_for_Reconsideration_03262014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120123001/120123001_Operator_Petition_for_Reconsideration_03262014.pdf

120123001_Final Order_02032014_text.pdf

FEBRUARY 3, 2014
Mr. Tom May
President
NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp.
One NSTAR Way
Westwood, MA 02090
Re: CPF No. 1-2012-3001
Dear Mr. May:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $32,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by Hopkinton LNG Corp., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment
terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the
date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Paul J. Zohorsky, Acting Vice President, Gas Operations, NSTAR Electric & Gas
Corp./Hopkinton LNG Corp.
Mr. Byron Coy, P.E. Director, Eastern Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Hopkinton LNG Corp., ) CPF No. 1-2012-3001
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On October 4, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities of Hopkinton LNG Corp.
(Hopkinton or Respondent), in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. Hopkinton, a subsidiary of NSTAR
Electric and Gas Corp.,
1 operates liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Hopkinton and
Acushnet, Massachusetts, to supplement pipeline supply during winter months.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated April 2, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Hopkinton had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 193,
assessing a civil penalty of $64,600 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Hopkinton responded to the Notice by letter dated April 24, 2012, requesting a hearing and
additional time to respond to the Notice. On May 30, 2012, Hopkinton provided its response to
the Notice, contested the allegations, presented information seeking elimination of the proposed
penalty, and withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby authorizing the entry of this Final Order
without further notice.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as follows:
1 NSTAR is an operating company of Northeast Utilities. See http://www.nstar.com/about_nstar/, last viewed
December 16, 2013.
2 See http://www.nstar.com/about nstar/nonreg.asp (last viewed December 16, 2013).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609, which states:
§ 193.2609 Support systems.
Each support system or foundation of each component must be
inspected for any detrimental change that could impair support.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609 by failing to inspect some of
its support systems and foundations for detrimental changes that could impair support.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed in 2009 and 2010 to inspect some of the
support systems and foundations at the Hopkinton LNG facility for detrimental changes. In
support of its position, PHMSA provided eight photographs showing areas it believed showed
changes to the support systems and foundation deterioration more severe than what was
documented in the inspection conducted by Hopkinton in 2010.
In its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation of violation, providing pictures and
information of the support systems that PHMSA had asserted were showing signs of
deterioration and detrimental change. Respondent argued that while the pictures may show some
superficial damage to several support systems, there was no change that could impair support of
the pipeline system. Hopkinton also argued that its reports show that in 2009 and 2010, all of the
support systems and/or foundations were, in fact, inspected. While PHMSA may not agree with
the rankings Hopkinton gave to the support systems and need for repair, the evidence shows that
they were indeed inspected.
Hopkinton has also provided additional information regarding the areas PHMSA asserted
showed detrimental changes. After reviewing the photographs and other information provided
by Hopkinton, I find that the alleged changes to the support structures were only superficial.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Hopkinton inspected each support
system or foundation of each component for any detrimental change pursuant to § 193.2609 and
hereby order that Item 1, along with its related penalty and corrective action, be withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a), which states:
§ 193.2625 Corrosion protection.
(a) Each operator shall determine which components could, unless
corrosion is controlled, have their integrity or reliability adversely affected
by external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended
service life.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a) by failing to determine
which metallic components could, unless corrosion were controlled, have their integrity or
reliability adversely affected by external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended
service life. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton had never determined, during the
period since their installation in 1970, whether the carbon steel bottoms of three LNG tanks at
the Hopkinton LNG facility had been adversely affected by external corrosion.



3
In its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation, arguing that it had made a determination,
on two separate occasions, that the bottoms on the three tanks were not susceptible to
atmospheric corrosion: first, when it selected the initial design and installed the tanks in the
1970’s; second, when it reconfirmed the tank bottoms’ integrity in 2009. In support of its
position, Hopkinton provided detailed information regarding the construction of the tanks and
two affidavits from employees declaring that they had initiated and ultimately made a
determination regarding whether the tank bottoms would be susceptible to atmospheric
corrosion.
Hopkinton failed, however, to provide any written documentation showing it had actually
conducted an engineering evaluation or assessment resulting in a formal determination that the
three tanks were not susceptible to atmospheric corrosion. Instead, Respondent merely
submitted information showing its conclusion that there was no risk of atmospheric corrosion.
Implicit in the regulation is a requirement that any determination be properly documented, using
acceptable engineering methods and based on sound engineering judgment.
Furthermore, even if we assume, arguendo, that Hopkinton did perform some sort of informal
engineering review or analysis, it is essential under Subpart G of Part 193 that such a process be
documented. Under 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(c)(2), an operator must keep records showing each
test, survey, or inspection conducted under Subpart G to show the adequacy of the corrosion
control measures taken to protect against the threat of corrosion. I do not believe, in this
instance, that the evidence provided by Respondent is sufficient to demonstrate the company
made an adequate determination that the integrity or reliability of the three tank bottoms could
not be adversely affected by corrosion.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 193.2625(a) by failing to adequately determine whether its three LNG tanks were susceptible
to atmospheric corrosion.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 193.2605 Maintenance procedures.
(a) . . .
(b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written
procedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required
corrosion control. The procedures must include:
(1) The details of the inspection or tests determined under paragraph
(a) of this section and their frequency of performance; . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to follow a
manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each component of its system, including
any corrosion control. Specifically, it alleged that Hopkinton’s procedures failed to prescribe
how prompt corrective or remedial action would be taken whenever the company learned, either
by inspection or otherwise, that atmospheric, external or internal corrosion was not being
controlled as required by Subpart G. The Notice further alleged that Hopkinton’s 2005 and 2008



4
atmospheric corrosion monitoring inspections had revealed that crevice corrosion existed where
the pipe was resting directly on a pipe support or trestle, yet the company had no specific
procedure to deal with this type of specific situation.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to have
written procedures setting forth the action needed to be taken when crevice corrosion issue had
been identified.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a), which states:
§ 193.2639 Maintenance records.
(a) Each operator shall keep a record at each LNG plant of the date
and type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to
meet the requirements of this part. For each LNG facility that is designed
and constructed after March 31, 2000, the operator shall also maintain
related periodic inspection and testing records that NFPA 59A
(incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013) requires. Maintenance
records, whether required by this part or NFPA 59A, must be kept for a
period not less than five years.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a) by failing to keep a record
of the date and type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to meet the
requirements of Part 193. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed to keep a record
of the atmospheric corrosion observations made by company personnel at pipe/soil interfaces. It
further alleged that Hopkinton did not document any atmospheric corrosion procedures at these
particular points, as required in Section 3.6C of the company’s own Corrosion Control
Procedures. In support of its position, PHMSA identified two corrosion reports from 2005 and
2008 that did not conform to Section 3.6 of Hopkinton’s own procedures. Additionally, PHMSA
noted that during its inspection in 2010, areas of corrosion were present that had not been
identified in the company’s earlier corrosion surveys.
Hopkinton contested this allegation of violation. Specifically, Respondent pointed to its
October 28, 2005 and October 8, 2008 records detailing the findings of its atmospheric corrosion
inspections. 3 Hopkinton’s records indicate that an inspection had occurred in 2008 and noted
various areas in need of attention. It is Hopkinton’s position that the records satisfy the
requirement in § 193.2639(a) that it record the date and type of each maintenance activity
performed under Part 193.
I disagree. Although the 2005 and 2008 records show that Hopkinton conducted corrosion
inspections in a timely matter, they do not show that the inspections gave “particular attention at
soil-to-air interfaces,” as required under the company’s own procedures under § 193.2605, and
that the company recorded information of such observations during the inspection.
3 See, Violation Report Exhibit A-4 and A-6.



5
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 193.2639(a) by failing to keep a record of the atmospheric corrosion observations made by
company personnel at pipe/soil interfaces.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b)(1), as quoted
above, by failing to follow a manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each
component of its system, including any corrosion control. Specifically, it alleged that Hopkinton
failed to follow its own procedures, namely, Corrosion Procedures, Section 3.6C, which
required that “[p]ipelines exposed to the atmosphere will be inspected at least once every three
years, at intervals not to exceed thirty-nine months” and that particular attention be paid to areas
under thermal insulation. According to the Notice, Hopkinton failed to follow these procedures
because not all pipe segments exposed to the atmosphere were inspected every three years and
because the company’s procedures failed to specify a schedule establishing the frequency of
inspections.4
In its Response, Hopkinton contended that its actions were within full compliance of § 193.2605
and its own procedures for monitoring corrosion control. Respondent contended: a) its
procedures only required the inspection of its insulated pipeline when the insulation was
removed; b) it was not required to remove the insulation to inspect for corrosion; c) removal of
the insulation for routine inspections would be detrimental to the pipeline; and d) based upon the
type of pipe material used, i.e., stainless steel, it would not be subject to atmospheric corrosion.
I do not find these arguments convincing. First, PHMSA has not asserted that Hopkinton must
remove all of its insulation every three years to inspect components for atmospheric corrosion.
Instead, the Violation Report specifically references Section 3.6C of Respondent’s own
corrosion procedures, which requires that the company pay particular attention to piping under
thermal insulation. Hopkinton’s 2008 report notes that it didn’t inspect any areas that were
covered with thermal insulation. Second, I would note that there are inconsistencies in
Respondent’s procedures. Section 3.6C states that the components covered by thermal insulation
are to be paid particular attention, while Section 3.6E states that the components are only to be
inspected when the insulation is removed. These procedural inconsistencies, however, do not
negate the requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605 and § 193.2635(d).
Third, § 193.2605 requires operators to periodically inspect their LNG plant and components.
The inspection of any component protected from atmospheric corrosion must be conducted at
least every three years. The regulation is silent as to the issue of whether all of the insulation
must be removed for the inspection, but it clearly states that each component must be inspected
for atmospheric corrosion and the company’s own procedures require that particular attention be
given to pipe under thermal insulation. Fourth, the regulation makes no distinction between
pipelines made with different material, stainless steel or otherwise. As noted in Hopkinton’s
2008 inspection report, it did not inspect components for atmospheric corrosion that were
insulated. Therefore, Hopkinton was in violation of its own procedures for failing to conduct
inspections of components under thermal insulation at intervals not exceeding three years.
4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 2, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 3.



6
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 193.2605 by failing to follow a manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each
component of its system, including any corrosion control.
These findings of violation contained in Items 2, 3, and 5 will be considered prior offenses in any
subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $64,600 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 193.2609, for failing to inspect some of its support systems and foundations to identify
detrimental changes that could impair support. As noted above, I found that Hopkinton did
inspect each support system or foundation of each component for any detrimental change
pursuant to § 193.2609. Based upon such finding, I hereby withdraw the proposed penalty for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609.
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 193.2605, for failing to follow a manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each
component of its system, including any corrosion control. As discussed above, I found that
Respondent failed to inspect under all of its thermal insulation for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion every three years, despite the express language contained in Section 3C of its
Operator’s Corrosion Procedures. Hopkinton’s failure to properly inspect portions of its pipeline
that are thermally insulated could have severe consequences. Corrosion, left unchecked, can lead
to pipeline leaks, causing extensive property damage, injuries and clean-up costs. The fact that
no accident occurred in this instance is reflected in the penalty being assessed in this instance.
While Hopkinton contends that its current insulation inspection practices are appropriate and
evidence of its good-faith efforts, its own inspection report from 2008 states that “pipelines
covered with insulation were not inspected.” Therefore, I find no basis for a reduction of the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $32,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $32,100.



7
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $32,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §193. Item 1 has been withdrawn so no compliance terms are included in
this Order. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or
who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety
standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and
49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance
with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 193.2625(a) (Item 2), Respondent must
determine if the outer LNG tank bottoms could have their integrity or reliability
adversely affected by external corrosion unless external corrosion were controlled.
Hopkinton has stated that it has already commissioned R.A. Hoffman Engineering to
perform an assessment and determination regarding the three LNG tank bottoms.
Respondent shall complete the determination within 180 days of the receipt of the
Final Order, and submit it to the Regional Director for review. If necessary,
Hopkinton shall establish a remediation plan based upon that determination.
2. With respect to the violation of § 193.2605 (Item 3), Respondent must incorporate
into its corrosion procedures empirical measurements relating its Good, Fair, and
Poor evaluations to pipe-wall loss, with appropriate remedial actions specified to deal
with these severity ratings. This shall be completed within 90 days of receipt of the
Final Order, followed by a reevaluation of its pipelines on supports or trestles within
180 days of receipt of the Final Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 193.2639(a) (Item 4), Respondent must expand
its procedures to identify the relevant pipelines and to describe the monitoring process
of the soil-to-air interface of all pipelines subject to Part 193. This shall be completed
within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order. Within 180 days of the receipt of the



8
Final Order, Hopkinton shall reexamine its pipe-to-soil interfaces for the presence of
atmospheric corrosion. Should remedial action be deemed necessary, it shall be
accomplished in accordance with the procedures established in Item 3 above.
4. With respect to the violation of § 193.2605(b) (Item 5), Respondent must revise
Section 3.6E of its Corrosion Procedures to require monitoring of all pipe exposed to
the atmosphere, at intervals no greater than 3 years. The procedure shall make
provisions for inspecting under thermally insulated pipe. The procedures shall be
revised within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order. Hopkinton shall inspect all
piping under thermal insulation within 12 months of issuance of the Final Order.
Should remedial action be deemed necessary, it shall be accomplished in accordance
with the revised procedures established for Item 3 above.
5. It is requested (not mandated) that Hopkinton LNG maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit
the total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans procedures, studies and analysis; and 2) total associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

120123001_Amended Final Order_03052014_text.pdf

MARCH 5, 2014
Mr. Tom May
President
NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp.
One NSTAR Way
Westwood, MA 02090
RE: In the Matter of Hopkinton LNG Corp. [CPF No. 1-2012-3001]
Dear Mr. May:
I am writing in further reference to the Final Order, dated February 3, 2014, that was issued by
PHMSA in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary, Hopkinton LNG Corp. We
subsequently received a letter, dated February 14, 2014, from James B. Curry, Esq., counsel for
Hopkinton, requesting an extension of time to file a Petition for Reconsideration in the case.
Prior to receipt of Mr. Curry’s letter, however, PHMSA staff had already discovered an error in
Paragraph No. 4 (relating to Item #5 of the Notice of Probable Violation) of the Compliance
Order section of the Final Order, relating to the inspection of pipe under thermal insulation. We
are therefore issuing the enclosed Amended Final Order to correct the error. All other provisions
of the original Final Order, including the assessed penalty of $31,100 and the remaining
compliance terms, remain in effect.
The issuance of the Amended Final Order means that Hopkinton will have 20 days from the date
of receipt of this letter to file a Petition for Reconsideration if it still wishes to do so.
Accordingly, counsel’s request for an extension of time is no longer needed and is therefore
denied as moot.
Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this error may have caused.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: OPS Compliance Registry
Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS
James B. Curry, Esquire, VanNess Feldman, LLP, Counsel for LNG Hopkinton Corp.,
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, Seventh Floor, NW Washington, D.C., 20007
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Hopkinton LNG Corp., ) CPF No. 1-2012-3001
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
AMENDED FINAL ORDER
On October 4, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities of Hopkinton LNG Corp.
(Hopkinton or Respondent) in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. Hopkinton, a subsidiary of NSTAR
Electric and Gas Corp.,
1 operates liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Hopkinton and
Acushnet, Massachusetts, to supplement pipeline supply during winter months.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated April 2, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, a Proposed Civil Penalty and a
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Hopkinton had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 193,
assessing a civil penalty of $64,600 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Hopkinton responded to the Notice by letter dated April 24, 2012, requesting a hearing and
additional time to respond to the Notice. On May 30, 2012, Hopkinton provided its response to
the Notice, contested the allegations, presented information seeking elimination of the proposed
penalty, and withdrew its request for a hearing, thereby authorized the entry of this Final Order
without further notice.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 193, as follows:
1 NSTAR is an operating company of Northeast Utilities. See http://www.nstar.com/about_nstar/, last viewed
December 16, 2013.
2 See http://www.nstar.com/about_nstar/nonreg.asp, last viewed December 16, 2013.



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609, which states:
§ 193.2609 Support systems.
Each support system or foundation of each component must be
inspected for any detrimental change that could impair support.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2609 by failing to inspect some of
its support systems and foundations for detrimental changes that could impair support.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed in 2009 and 2010 to inspect some of the
support systems and foundations at its LNG facility for detrimental changes. In support of its
position PHMSA provided eight photographs showing areas it believed showed changes to the
support systems that were not listed in Hopkinton’s reports.
In its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation of violation, providing pictures and
information of the support systems that PHMSA had asserted were showing signs of
deterioration and detrimental change. Respondent argued that while the pictures may show some
superficial damage to several support systems, there was no change that could impair support of
the pipeline system. Hopkinton also argued that its reports show that in 2009 and 2010 all of the
support systems and/or foundations were, in fact, inspected. While PHMSA may not agree with
the rankings Hopkinton gave to the support systems and need for repair, the evidence shows that
they were indeed inspected.
Hopkinton has also provided additional information regarding the areas PHMSA asserted
showed detrimental changes. After reviewing the pictures provided by Hopkinton, the additional
information it provided regarding those pictures and the initial inspection reports, I find that the
alleged changes to the support structures were only superficial.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Hopkinton inspected each support
system or foundation of each component for any detrimental change pursuant to § 193.2609 and
hereby order that Item 1, along with its related penalty and corrective action, be withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a), which states:
§ 193.2625 Corrosion protection.
(a) Each operator shall determine which components could, unless
corrosion is controlled, have their integrity or reliability adversely affected
by external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended
service life.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2625(a) by not determining which
metallic components could, unless corrosion is controlled, have their integrity or reliability
adversely affected by external, internal, or atmospheric corrosion during their intended service
life. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton has never determined, during the period
since their installation in 1970, whether the carbon steel bottoms of three LNG tanks had been
adversely affected by external corrosion.



3
In its Response, Hopkinton contested this allegation, arguing that it had made a determination,
on two separate occasions, that the bottoms on the three tanks were not susceptible to
atmospheric corrosion, first, when it selected the initial design and installed the tanks in the
1970’s and, second, in 2009. In support of its position, Hopkinton provided detailed information
regarding the construction of the tanks and two affidavits from employees declaring that they had
initiated and ultimately made a determination regarding whether the tank bottoms would be
susceptible to atmospheric corrosion.
Hopkinton failed, however, to provide any written documentation showing that it had actually
conducted an evaluation or assessment and had ultimately made a determination that the three
tanks are not susceptible to atmospheric corrosion. Respondent merely submitted information
suggesting there was no atmospheric corrosion, but no final determination.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that Hopkinton did perform some sort of informal engineering
review or analysis, it is essential under Subpart G of Part 193 that such a process be documented.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(c)(2), an operator must keep records showing each test, survey, or
inspection conducted under Subpart G in order to show the adequacy of the corrosion control
measures taken to protect against the threat of corrosion. I do not believe, in this instance, that
the evidence provided by Respondent is sufficient to demonstrate the company made an actual
determination that the integrity or reliability of the three tank bottoms could be adversely
affected by corrosion.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 193.2625(a) by failing to adequately determine whether its three LNG tanks are susceptible to
atmospheric corrosion.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 193.2605 Maintenance procedures.
(a) . . .
(b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written
procedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required
corrosion control. The procedures must include:
(1) The details of the inspection or tests determined under paragraph
(a) of this section and their frequency of performance; . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to follow a
manual of written procedures for the maintenance of each component of its system, including
any corrosion control. Specifically, it alleged that Hopkinton’s procedures failed to prescribe
how prompt corrective or remedial action would be taken whenever the company learned, either
by inspection or otherwise, that atmospheric, external or internal corrosion was not being
controlled as required by Subpart G. The Notice further alleged that Hopkinton’s 2005 and 2008
atmospheric corrosion monitoring inspections had revealed that crevice corrosion existed where
the pipe was resting directly on a pipe support or trestle, yet the company had no specific
procedure to deal with this type of specific situation.



4
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b) by failing to have
written procedures setting forth the action needed to be taken when crevice corrosion issue had
been identified.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a), which states:
§ 193.2639 Maintenance records.
(a) Each operator shall keep a record at each LNG plant of the date
and type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to
meet the requirements of this part. For each LNG facility that is designed
and constructed after March 31, 2000, the operator shall also maintain
related periodic inspection and testing records that NFPA 59A
(incorporated by reference, see § 193.2013) requires. Maintenance
records, whether required by this part or NFPA 59A, must be kept for a
period not less than five years.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2639(a) by failing to keep a record
of the date and type of each maintenance activity performed on each component to meet the
requirements of Part 193. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hopkinton failed to keep a record
of the atmospheric corrosion observations made by company personnel at pipe/soil interfaces. It
further alleged that Hopkinton did not document any atmospheric corrosion procedures at these
particular points, as required in Section 3.6C of the company’s own Corrosion Control
Procedures. In support of its position, PHMSA identified two corrosion reports from 2005 and
2008 that did not conform to Section 3.6 of Hopkinton’s procedures. Additionally, PHMSA
noted that during its inspection in 2010, areas of corrosion were present but had not been
identified in the company’s earlier corrosion surveys.
Hopkinton contested this allegation of violation, based upon these same corrosion reports from
2005 and 2008. Specifically, Respondent, pointed to its October 28, 2005 and October 8, 2008
records detailing the findings of its atmospheric corrosion inspections. 3 Hopkinton’s records
indicate that an inspection occurred in 2008, noting various areas in need of attention. It is
Hopkinton’s position that the records satisfy the requirement in § 193.2639(a) that it record the
date and type of each maintenance activity performed under Part 193.
I disa
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 73890