{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120191020","title":"GREYLOCK MIDSTREAM, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-10-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.709(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120191020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120191020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120191020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120191020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving GREYLOCK MIDSTREAM, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.709(c). The case was opened on 2019-10-03 and is reported as closed as of 2020-05-29. Proposed civil penalty: $21,400. Assessed civil penalty: $21,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120191020_Final Order_05282020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191020/120191020_Final%20Order_05282020.pdf\n\n120191020_Final Order_05282020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191020/120191020_Final%20Order_05282020_text.pdf\n\n120191020_NOPV PCP_10032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191020/120191020_NOPV%20PCP_10032019.pdf\n\n120191020_NOPV PCP_10032019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191020/120191020_NOPV%20PCP_10032019_text.pdf\n\n120191020_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Civil Penalty Worksheet_12162019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120191020/120191020_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Civil%20Penalty%20Worksheet_12162019.pdf\n\n120191020_Final Order_05282020_text.pdf\n\nMay 28, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kmork@greylockenergy.com\nMr. Kyle Mork\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nGreylock Energy, LLC\n500 Corporate Landing\nCharleston, West Virginia 25311\nRe: CPF No. 1-2019-1020\nDear Mr. Mork:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nGreylock Midstream, LLC. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$21,400. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is\neffective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. R. Ray Lovejoy II, Counsel, Greylock Energy, LLC, rlovejoy@greylockenergy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nGreylock Midstream, LLC, )\na subsidiary of Greylock Energy, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2019-1020\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 15 to August 22, 2019, 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 facilities and records of Greylock\nMidstream, LLC, a subsidiary of Greylock Energy, LLC (Greylock or Respondent) in Clearfield,\nPennsylvania. Greylock is an oil and natural gas, exploration, production, and midstream\ncompany.1 Greylock has one federal unit with 15.8 miles of gas transmission pipeline located in\nClearfield County, Pennsylvania.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 3, 2019, 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 Greylock\nhad violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $21,400 for the\nalleged violation.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Greylock responded to the\nNotice by letter dated December 16, 2019 (Response). The company contested the allegation,\noffered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced or eliminated.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Greylock Midstream website, available at https://www.greylockmidstream.com/ (last accessed May 20, 2020);\nGreylock Energy website, available at https://www.greylockenergy.com/leadership (last accessed May 20, 2020).\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Oct. 3, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-1029\nPage 2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission line\nfor the periods specified:\n(a) ….\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by\nsubparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until\nthe next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain\nrecords of a test required by subpart M of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 for at least five years. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Greylock failed in 18 instances to maintain records demonstrating that 9\nemergency valves in its Clearfield County, Pennsylvania operating area were partially operated\nin accordance with § 192.745(a) during calendar years 2017 and 2018. Section 192.745(a) states\nthat “each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must be\ninspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year.”\nGreylock’s Valve Inspection Reports for 2017 and 2018 included a column titled “Partially\nOperated,” which is populated with a Yes or No response to document that the valve was\npartially operated. The reports indicated nine times each in 2017 and 2018 where emergency\nvalves were not documented as being partially operated during the annual inspection, as the\n“Partially Operated” field was incomplete for those records.\nIn its Response, Greystone admitted that the Valve Inspection Reports “do not reflect a checked\nbox in the section for Partially Operated,” however it stated that this was due to a limited clerical\nadministrative oversight. It explained that the partial operation tests were performed on October\n31, 2017, and September 20, 27, and October 1, 2018, respectively. Respondent submitted\ncopies of the same Valve Inspection Reports, which do not reflect any boxes checked in the\nsection for Partially Operated. Greylock also stated that it had implemented measures to address\nthe matter and “the reporting procedure has been amended to fully reflect and memorialize any\ncompleted partial operation inspection moving forward.”\nWhile PHMSA recognizes Greylock’s assertion that the tests were in fact completed,\nRespondent has acknowledged that it failed to maintain a record of those tests, which is required\nunder § 192.709(c). Thus, the evidence in the record demonstrates Respondent did not comply\nwith the record keeping requirement in § 192.709(c) as alleged in the Notice. The Notice did not\nallege that Greylock failed to perform the tests under § 192.745(a). Therefore, Respondent’s\nassertion is not grounds to withdraw the violation, however the information is considered below\nwith respect to the civil penalty. Although Greylock has updated its procedures to prevent this\nissue from reoccurring, this action was taken in response to PHMSA identifying the violation.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-1029\nPage 3\nTherefore, I am unpersuaded to withdraw the violation on this basis.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.709(c) by failing to maintain records of a test required by subpart M of 49 C.F.R. Part 192\nfor at least five years.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.3 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; 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 $21,400 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.709(c), for failing to maintain records of a test required by subpart M of 49 C.F.R. Part\n192 for at least five years. Greylock requested that the penalty be reduced or withdrawn because\nthe company did in fact perform the tests and simply made a clerical error. In addition, the\ncompany has taken measures to prevent the violation from repeating in the future. Having\nconsidered this information in light of the civil penalty assessment factors, I find no basis to\nreduce the penalty.\nThe nature of the violation was designated correctly in the Violation Report as “Records\n(examples: missing, inaccurate, or incomplete records),” which is the lowest designation. The\ncircumstances were designated correctly as “PHMSA or a State Partner discovered the\nviolation.” Since Greylock did not self-report this violation, I find there is no justification for\nlowering the penalty based on “circumstances.” The gravity of the violation was already\ndesignated at the lowest level as “Pipeline safety was minimally affected,” which is reflective of\nRespondent’s assertion that the tests were performed. Had Respondent instead failed to perform\nthe tests, the gravity of the violation and resulting civil penalty amount would have been higher.\nThe degree of Respondent’s culpability was correctly designated as “The operator failed to\ncomply with an applicable requirement.” The lower options for culpability require the operator\nto have taken action before PHMSA discovers the violation; this did not occur in this case.\nAlthough Greylock updated its procedures to prevent this issue from reoccurring, this action was\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-1029\nPage 4\ntaken in response to PHMSA identifying the violation. Greylock does not have a previous\nhistory of prior offenses, so history did not negatively impact the penalty calculation. Greylock\nhas provided no information stating that the penalty would have any effect on its ability to\ncontinue doing business, therefore I find there is no basis to reduce the penalty based on this\ncriteria. Lastly, I find that there is no justification to provide a credit to Greylock for good faith\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations because it did not provide a\nreasonable justification for its non-compliance.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $21,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $21,400 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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 28, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13796}