{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32021056NOPV","title":"MISSISSIPPI HUB, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2021-10-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.631(e)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021056nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021056nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021056nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32021056NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MISSISSIPPI HUB, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.631(e)(2). The case was opened on 2021-10-07 and is reported as closed as of 2022-08-03. Proposed civil penalty: $23,100. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32021056NOPV_Final Order_08032022_(20-179020).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021056NOPV/32021056NOPV_Final%20Order_08032022_(20-179020).pdf\n\n32021056NOPV_Final Order_08032022_(20-179020)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021056NOPV/32021056NOPV_Final%20Order_08032022_(20-179020)_text.pdf\n\n32021056NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_12032021_(20-179020).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021056NOPV/32021056NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12032021_(20-179020).pdf\n\n32021056NOPV_PCP_10072021_(20-179020).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021056NOPV/32021056NOPV_PCP_10072021_(20-179020).pdf\n\n32021056NOPV_PCP_10072021_(20-179020)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021056NOPV/32021056NOPV_PCP_10072021_(20-179020)_text.pdf\n\n32021056NOPV_Final Order_08032022_(20-179020)_text.pdf\n\nAugust 3, 2022\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: paul.bienawski@enstorinc.com\nMr. Paul Bieniawski\nChief Executive Officer\nEnstor Gas, LLC\n10375 Richmond Ave., Suite 1900\nHouston, Texas 77042\nRe: CPF No. 3-2021-056-NOPV\nDear Mr. Bieniawski:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and reduces the civil penalty to $0. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of\nreceipt 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. Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Todd Cash, Vice President, Compliance, Enstor Gas, LLC, todd.cash@enstorinc.com\nMs. Lisa M. Tonery, Counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, ltonery@orrick.com\nMs. Mariah T. Johnston, Counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,\nmjohnston@orrick.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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nMississippi Hub, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2021-056-NOPV\nan affiliate of Enstor Gas, LLC, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 6 through 20, 2020, 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 a pipeline safety inspection of the control room procedures and records of\nMississippi Hub, LLC, an affiliate of Enstor Gas, LLC (Enstor or Respondent), in Katy, Texas.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 7, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice).2 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enstor had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $23,100 for the\nalleged violation.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond,3 Enstor responded to the Notice\nby letter dated December 3, 2021 (Response). The company did not contest the allegation of\nviolation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalty\nbe reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\n1 In February 2019, Sempra Energy sold Mississippi Hub, LLC to ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC. ArcLight Capital\nPartner’s affiliate, Enstor Gas, LLC, began operating the Mississippi Hub facility in August 2019. See Response at\n1-2; see also Enstor Press Release (Feb. 7, 2019), available at https://www.enstorinc.com/news/sempra-energy-\ncompletes-sale-us-natural-gas-storage-assets-arclight-capital-partners (last accessed May 10, 2022). On May 11,\n2022, ArcLight Capital Partners sold Enstor to Infrastructure Investment Funds. See Enstor Press Release (May 11,\n2022), available at https://www.enstorinc.com/news/iif-acquires-enstor-gas-arclight (last accessed June 28, 2022).\n2 Although the Notice was addressed to “Enstor-Mississippi Hub,” Respondent explained that the Mississippi Hub\nfacility is operated by Enstor Gas, LLC, an affiliate. Response at 1.\n3 The request for a time extension was submitted by “attorneys for Mississippi Hub, LLC.”\n\n\n\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Enstor did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2), which states:\n§ 192.631 Control room management.\n(a) . . .\n(e) Alarm Management. Each operator using a SCADA system must\nhave a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller\nresponse to alarms. An operator’s plan must include provisions to:\n(1) . . .\n(2) Identify at least one each calendar month points affecting safety that\nhave been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,\ngenerated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods\nof time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating\nactivities;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2) by failing to have a\nwritten alarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms that\nincluded provisions to identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have\nbeen taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or\nthat have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated\nmaintenance or operating activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enstor failed to identify\nat least once each calendar month off-scan, inhibited, manual or forced alarms for the years\n2017, 2018, and 2019.\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. § 192.631(e)(2) by failing to have a\nwritten alarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms that\nincluded provisions to identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have\nbeen taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or\nthat have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated\nmaintenance or operating activities.\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.4\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $23,100 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.631(e)(2) for failing to have a written alarm management plan to provide for effective\ncontroller response to alarms that included provisions to identify at least once each calendar\nmonth points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms\ninhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time\nexceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating activities.\nIn its Response, Enstor requested a reduction or elimination of the proposed civil penalty.\nSpecifically, Respondent stated that in August 2019, after Enstor acquired the Mississippi Hub\nfacility, it updated the form to record the safety points set forth in § 192.631(e)(2). Response at\n2. Enstor also stated that its SCADA team provided the monthly alarm and event history to the\nRemote Operations Center (ROC) to utilize in completing its monthly alarm review.5 Id.\nFurther, in preparing for the November 2020 OPS inspection, Enstor realized that its definition\nof “safety-related points” only included alarms, and subsequently revised it to include points\naffecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,\ngenerated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding\nthat required for associated maintenance or operating activities. Id.\nEnstor requested a reduction or elimination of the penalty for three reasons. First, it claimed that\nthis violation was a minor, record-keeping issue that did not impact pipeline safety. Id. at 3.\nSecond, Enstor stated that it began operating the facility in late 2019, and once it began to do so,\nmade updates to its control room management forms and procedures prior to the 2020 inspection.\nId. Third, Enstor explained that it has a history of compliance, and worked to ensure its written\nprocedures were adequate for the safe operation of its pipeline facilities in response to the Notice\nof Amendment that was served concurrently with this case. Id. at 3-4; see also CPF 3-2021-055-\nNOA.\nI will address each of Respondent’s arguments in order. First, the Pipeline Safety Violation\nReport already notes that this violation minimally affected pipeline safety under the civil penalty\nassessment factor for the gravity of the violation. See Pipeline Safety Violation Report\n(Violation Report) at 6 (Oct. 12, 2021) (on file with PHMSA). Further, under the civil penalty\nassessment factor for the nature of the violation, the Violation Report correctly notes that this is\nan activities violation, rather than a record-keeping violation. Id. at 5. Record-keeping\nviolations involve missing, inaccurate, or incomplete records. Id. In this case, Enstor failed to\nconduct an activity. Namely, Respondent failed to identify points affecting safety that have been\ntaken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that\nhave had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated\n5 The ROC is a third-party contractor employed by Respondent. Violation Report, at 1.\n\n\n\nmaintenance or operating activities at least once each calendar month. Therefore, I see no reason\nto find that the violation was merely a record-keeping, rather than a substantive, violation.\nSecond, Enstor argues that Sempra Energy operated the Mississippi Hub facility for a vast\nmajority of the period during which the violation occurred, and once it began operating the\nfacility in August 2019, it identified the noncompliance and took steps to address it.\nSpecifically, Enstor states that in August 2019, it updated Form OM1100-04 to record the safety\npoints set forth in § 192.631(e)(2). Response at 2. Additionally, prior to PHMSA’s inspection,\nEnstor explained it revised its definition of “safety-related points.” Id. Although Enstor did not\nachieve full compliance through these efforts, it had taken documented action to correct the non-\ncompliance prior to PHMSA discovering the violation. In his evaluation of Enstor’s response\nmaterials, the Director supported a change under the culpability civil penalty assessment factor,\nand I agree such a change is appropriate. Therefore, I am changing the culpability factor from\n“[t]he operator failed to comply with an applicable requirement” to “[a]fter the operator found\nthe non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the cause of the non-\ncompliance, and was in the process of correcting the non-compliance before PHMSA learned of\nthe violation.”\nThird, Enstor requested a reduction or elimination of the penalty due to its history of compliance.\nThe Violation Report already incorporates an operator’s compliance history into the civil penalty\ncalculation. Violation Report at 2. Therefore, I see no reason to further alter the civil penalty\nbased on this information.\nAccordingly, after having reviewed the record and the assessment criteria, and based upon a\nfinding that a culpability credit is warranted, the civil penalty assessed is reduced to $0.\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. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing\nof a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of\nthe order, including any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order\nbecomes the final administrative 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.\nAugust 3, 2022\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":14543}