Case 6:16-cr-00192-DDD-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/10/16 …lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/corporate-prosecution-registry/... · United States A ftorney's Oj]ice Eastern District of' Louisiana

Case 6:16-cr-00192-DDD-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 45

Emily K. Greenfield Assistant United Stales Artorney

Nadira Clarke Katten, Muchin, Rosenman

U.S. Department of Justice United States A ftorney's Oj]ice Eastern District of' Louisiana

Poydras Center 650 Poydras Street, 16th Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

July 28, 2016

2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007-5118

Re: United States v. Wood Group PSN, Inc. Criminal Docket Number 15-197 "H"

Dear Ms. Clarke:

Telephone: (504) 680-3024 FacsimNe.· (504) 589-2027

In compliance with the holding of Bryan v. United States, 492 F.2d 775 (l 974) and with Rule 11 (c)(l )(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government wishes to acknowledge the following agreement which was reached between the government and Wood Group PSN, Inc. (hereinafter the "Company" or "defendant"), the defendant in the abovereferenced proceeding. As the Company's counsel, you have reviewed the terms of this agreement and have been advised by the Company that it fully understands the terms of this agreement. The Company, by written board resolution attached hereto, has authorized you to enter into this plea agreement on the Company's behalf.

The Company has agreed to plead guilty to Count 12 in the Second Superseding Indictment that charges it with one count of violating the Clean Water Act (Title 33, United States Code, Sections 1319( c )( 1 )(A) and 1321 (b )(3)) for negligently discharging oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In exchange for the Company's guilty plea to the Clean Water Act charge, the government will not seek an appeal of the dismissal of Counts 4 through 9 of the Second Superseding Indictment. This agreement applies only to the Company (Wood Group PSN, Inc.).

The Company understands that the maximum penalty it may face for the negligent Clean Water Act violation is $200,000, or the greater of twice the gross gain to the defendant or twice the gross loss to any person, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3571. The Company understands that it may face up to 5 years of probation.

Mandatory restitution is not applicable under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3663A for the offenses charged in the Second Superseding Indictment. To the extent any restitution is ordered under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3663, or as a condition of probation, the


Company agrees that it will be non-dischargeable in any bankruptcy proceeding and that defendant will not seek or cause to be sought a discharge or a finding of dischargeability as to the restitution obligation.

Further, the Company understands that a mandatory special assessment fee of $125.00 is applicable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013.

Pursuant to Rule 1 l(c){l)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the agreement made between the government and the Company, the government and the Company agree and stipulate to the following plea and sentence applicable to this case:

(1) The Company shall plead guilty to Count 12 of the Second Superseding Indictment charging it with negligent discharge under the Clean Water Act as described above. The facts constituting this violation shall be more thoroughly described in a mutually acceptable Factual Basis submitted herewith.

(2) In exchange for the Company's guilty plea, the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Environmental Crimes Section of the Department of Justice agree that they will not pursue an appeal against the Company for re-instatement of Counts 4 through 9 of the Second Superseding Indictment that were dismissed by the Honorable Jane Triche Milazzo on or about April 14, 2016. The government further agrees not to bring any other charges against the Company arising from or related to any and all conduct on the West Delta 32 platform during the time period of November 8, 2012, through November 16, 2012. This plea agreement does not bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting authority.

(3) It is understood that nothing within this specific agreement shall be construed to release the defendant from any possible related or consequential civil or administrative liability including administrative sanctions.

(4) The Company further agrees to pay a criminal fine of$1,800,000.00. The parties agree and stipulate that 18 U.S.C. § 357l(d) applies to the count of conviction and that the pecuniary losses to persons exceeded $1,000,000.00. The Company will not capitalize into inventory or take as a tax deduction, in the United States or elsewhere, any portion of the monetary payments made pursuant to this plea agreement.

(5) The Company also agrees that it will make a community service payment of $200,000.00 to the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation ("Foundation") to be used for the benefit of the Flower Gardens National Marine Sanctuary ("FGNMS") to support the protection and preservation of natural resources located in and adjacent to the FGNMS. The Foundation was established to solicit donations for the National Marine Sanctuaries Program ("the Program") as authorized by 16 U.S.C. § 1442(b), and the Program is authorized to accept donations of funds pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1442( c) for the designation and administration of national marine sanctuaries. The Program is also authorized to accept grants from any federal agency or persons notwithstanding any provision

2


of law which prohibits assistance otherwise. 16 U.S.C § 1442(f). The Program manages the FGNMS, the only national marine sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico. The United States recommends that the Court additionally order as part of probation in this case that the defendant shall not characterize, publicize, or refer to the community service payment as a voluntary donation or contribution, nor shall the defendant seek any reduction in its tax obligations as a result of having made the community service payment. The defendant agrees not to object to the United States' recommendation.

(5) The Company agrees to pay the total monetary penalty on the day of sentencing.

(6) As set forth above, the Company must pay a special assessment of $125.00 on the day of sentencing. Failure to pay this special assessment may result in the plea agreement being voided.

(7) The Company will be placed on organizational probation for a period of three years from the date of sentencing. The following terms of probation are special terms of probation to which the Company shall be subject in addition to all standard terms of probation:

(a) The Company agrees that it shall not commit any further criminal violations, including those federal laws and regulations for which primary enforcement has been delegated to state authorities.

(b) The Company further agrees to enter into an "Administrative Agreement" with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Department of Interior ("DOI"), also known as the "Compliance Plan," for the duration of the probationary period of three years. The Company acknowledges and agrees that it will take every step necessary to adhere to and implement the Compliance Plan entered into. All terms of the Compliance Plan are to be implemented throughout the probationary period even ifthe "term" of the Compliance Plan is shorter than the term of probation.

(c) The Company shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of any criminal prosecution against it or knowledge by an executive officer of any referral for potential criminal prosecution to the United States Department of Justice from regulatory authorities.

(d) The Company shall designate an official of the organization to act as the organization's representative and to be the primary contact with the United States Probation Office.

(e) The Company shall provide written notice to the government, BSEE, and the U.S. Probation Office ten days prior to any of the following: (i) any change of its corporate name, (ii) any change in the principal business location or mailing address.

3


(f) No change in name, business reorganization, bankruptcy, change in ownership or control of the Company, merger, change in legal status, purchase of assets, or similar action shall alter or diminish the Company's obligations under this plea agreement. The Company further agrees that it will not engage in any business reorganization, transfer of ownership, corporate dissolution, or other business practice, including the sale or transfer of assets, in order to avoid the obligations set forth in this plea agreement.

(8) The parties have entered into this plea agreement under Rule 1 l(c)(l)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with the understanding that the Court will accept or reject the agreement but may not modify its terms. If the District Court modifies any portion of the plea agreement, the Company and/or the government have the right to withdraw from the plea agreement. The government believes that a Rule 1 l(c)(l)(C) plea agreement is appropriate in this case due to the following:

(a) The Company's remedial efforts since November 2013, to implement safety and training programs for its persons-in-charge and operators on offshore platforms to protect human health and the environment;

(b) The Company's acceptance of responsibility for its employees' conduct; and

(c) The Company's cooperation with the government's investigation.

The Company, in exchange for the promise(s) and agreement(s) made by the United States in this plea agreement, knowingly and voluntarily:

(a) Waives and gives up any right to appeal or contest its guilty plea, conviction, sentence, fine, supervised release, and any restitution imposed by any judge under any applicable restitution statute, including but not limited to any right to appeal any rulings on pretrial motions of any kind whatsoever, as well as any aspect of its sentence, including but not limited to any and all rights which arise under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 and Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291;

(b) Waives and gives up any right to appeal any order, decision, or judgment arising out of or related to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(2) imposed by any judge and further waives and gives up any right to challenge the manner in which its sentence was determined and to challenge any United States Sentencing Guidelines determinations and their application by any judge to the defendant's sentence and judgment, consistent with its rights under Rule 11 (c )(I )(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;

(c) Waives and gives up any right to challenge its sentence collaterally, including but not limited to any and all rights which arise under Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2255 and 2241, writs ofcoram nobis and audita querela, and any other collateral challenges to its sentence of any kind; and

4


(d) The defendant specifically does not waive, and retains the right to bring a direct appeal of any sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. The defendant also retains the right to bring a post-conviction challenge if it establishes that ineffective assistance of counsel directly affected the validity of this waiver of appeal and collateral challenge rights or the validity of the guilty plea itself.

The Company further waives any right to seek attorney's fees and/or other litigation expenses under the "Hyde Amendment," Title 18, United States Code, Section 3006A, and the Company acknowledges that the government's position in the instant prosecution was not vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith.

Further, the Company understands that any discussions with the Company's attorney or anyone else regarding sentencing guidelines are merely rough estimates and the Court is not bound by those discussions, except as set forth above pursuant to Rule l l(c)(l)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Company understands that the sentencing guidelines are advisory and are not mandatory for sentencing purposes.

In an effort to resolve this matter in a timely fashion and show good faith, the Company agrees to knowingly, voluntarily, and expressly waive its rights pursuant to Rule 41 O(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence upon signing this plea agreement and the factual basis. The Company understands and agrees that in the event the Company violates the plea agreement, withdraws its decision to plead guilty, its guilty plea is later withdrawn or otherwise set aside, any statements made by the Company to law enforcement agents or an attorney for the prosecuting authority during plea discussions, any statements made by the Company during any court proceeding involving the Company's plea of guilty, including any factual bases or summaries signed by the Company, and any leads from such statements, factual bases or summaries, shall be admissible for all purposes against the defendant in any and all criminal proceedings.

The Company agrees that it will continue cooperating with law enforcement authorities submitting to interviews whenever and wherever requested and testifying at any criminal proceeding.

The Company agrees that the monetary penalties will be non-dischargeable in any bankruptcy proceeding and that the Company will not seek or cause to be sought a discharge or a finding of dischargeability as to this obligation.

This plea agreement shall bind the defendant and any subsidiaries.

5


The Company understands that the statements set forth above and the Factual Basis to be filed in the record represent defendant's entire agreement with the Government and that there are no other agreements, letters or notations that will affect this agreement.

B,dl#:/ WOOD GROUP PS INC. . _ Representative for Defen ant

B, WoOO!<Sl-· -Nadira~ Attorney for Defendant

6

Very truly yours,

KENNETH NELSON Senior Trial Attorney, ECS

Case 6:16-cr-00192-DDD-PJH Document 5-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 51

U.S. DISTRICT COURT ."VESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RECEIVED LAFAYETTE

U.S. Department of Justice AUG United States Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * WDLA CRIMINAL NO. 16-CR-00192 * EDLA CRIMINAL NO. 15-CR-00197

VERSUS * * JUDGE DRELL

WOOD GROUP PSN, INC. * MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERSTANDING OF MAXIMUM PENALTY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

WOOD GROUP PSN, INC. (hereinafter 'WGPSN"), through its designated representative, having been first duly sworn and placed under oath by the Clerk or his Deputy of the United States District Court, states that WGPSN has been advised and addressed by the Court (Judge) as to the nature of the charge against WGPSN, and, having been furnished a copy of the charge, hereby state that WGPSN understands the charge and that the Court has informed WGPSN as to the maximum possible penalty that may be imposed against them, as follows:

PENALTY:

Count 12 of the Second Superseding Indictment:

A fine of up to $200,000, or the greater of twice the gross gain to the defendant or twice the gross loss to any person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(c) and (d), up to five (5) years of probation, and a special assessment fee of $125 at the time of sentencing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013 and the Eastern District of Louisiana Plea Agreement, paid by means of a cashier's check, bank official check, or money order payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court."

1


WGPSN further states it understands and the Court has informed it at the

arraignment proceeding as to:

1. Its right to be represented by counsel (a lawyer).

2. Its right to have a jury trial.

3. Its right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them and

their right to have compulsory process to require witnesses to testify.

4. Its right to plead guilty or not guilty.

WGPSN realizes that by pleading guilty it accepts legal responsibility for

the offense charged and thereby waives its right to jury trial, its right to confront

and cross-examine witnesses, and its right of compulsory process.

WGPSN further states that its plea in this matter is free and voluntary,

and that it has been made without any threats or inducements whatsoever from

anyone associated with the State or United States Government, and that the only

reason WGPSN is accepting responsibility for the charged offense is because

WGPSN is in fact responsible for commission of the offense under federal law. The

Court has given WGPSN the opportunity to make any statement desired.

2


Sworn to and subscribed before me this /fJ1 day of August, 2016, in Open

Court in Lafayette, Louisiana.

MARTIN McINTYRE, Ge WOOD GROUP ,

Defendant

NAD~~~-Katten Muchin Roseman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007-5118 Telephone: (202) 625-3767 Counsel fo efendant

PA

3


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Wb/Llt f (o ll2. ootqz.-o/ CRIMINAL NO. 15-197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA •

v. * SECTION: H

WOOD GROUP PSN, INC. • • * *

FACTUAL BASIS

The United States, represented by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern

District of Louisiana and the Environmental Crimes Section of the Department of Justice, and

the defendant, WOOD GROUP PSN, INC., hereby agree that this Factual Basis is a true and

accurate statement of the Defendant's criminal conduct, that it prnvides a sufficient basis for the

Defendant's plea of guilty to the charges contained in the Second Superseding Indictment in the

above-captioned matter, and had this matter prnceeded to trial, the following facts would be

established beyond a reasonable doubt through competent evidence and testimony:

I. Beginning at a time unlmown, but no later than on or about July I, 2010, and

continuing until on or about October 13, 2013, BLACK ELK ENERGY OFFSHORE

OPERATIONS, LLC ("BEE"), a privately-held limited liability company with headquarters in

Houston, Texas, owned and operated an oil production facility erected on a federal mineral

lease, OCS-00367, in the Gulf of Mexico approximately eight nautical miles from the

shoreline of the state of Louisiana, at an area designated as West Delta 32, in the territorial

jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

2. BEE 's production facility at West Delta 32 consisted of three bridged

platforms, "A," "D," and "E." BEE contracted with WOOD GROUP PSN, INC. ("WOOD


GROUP PSN"), a Nevada corporation with headquatiers in Houston, Texas, for individuals

to man and conduct production operations at the West Delta 32 facility. WOOD GROUP PSN

does not operate or lease its own production facilities; it provides manpower to other offshore

oil companies.

3. Starting on or about November 8, 2012, the production crew for West Delta 32

generally consisted of a Lead Operator, also !mown as a Person-In-Charge ("PIC"), two "A"

operators, a "C" operator, and a Roustabout. The PIC is responsible for the oversight and safety

of the production facility. Starting on or about November 8, 2012, the PIC for the facility at

West Delta 32 was defendant CHRISTOPHER SRUBAR ("SRUBAR").

4. Beginning at a time unknown, but no later than on or about September 1, 2012,

oil production at West Delta 32 was shut-in, meaning wells associated with BEE's West Delta

32 facility were not flowing, due to damage in pipelines that transported BEE's oil.

5. Following the shut-in, BEE unde1took a number of construction projects on the

platforms of the West Delta 32 facility and beginning on or about November 3, 2012, BEE

initiated construction projects that included replacing the floatcell (also ]mown as the WEMCO),

upgrades to the free water lmockout separator area, replacing valves on the manifold of the

production header, and installing a dive1t valve on the Lease Automatic Custody Transfer

("LACT') unit and tying it into the sump line piping.

6. The LACT system was the last point in the production process prior to the

oil leaving West Delta 32 and entering the sales transmission pipeline. The LACT system

consisted of two pumps that took suction from one of two 400 barrel Dry Oil Tanks on the "E"

platform. The pumps discharged through the basic sediment and water ("BS&W") monitor and

then through the oil pipeline pumps to the sales pipeline. BEE planned to have the system

2


modified to include a divert valve. The dive1t valve would redirect flow to the Wet Oil Tank

when the BS&W monitor indicated unacceptable contaminants in the crude oil, keeping it out of

the pipeline for sale until it was processed to an acceptable quality.

7. In October 2012, BEE contracted with an engineering firm to design plans for

the tloatcell replacement. BEE hired defendant DON MOSS ("MOSS") to be physically

present at the West Delta 32 facility to inspect and coordinate the construction project and

monitor worker safety.

8. The construction was to be physically completed by crews from defendant

GRAND ISLE SIIlPYARDS, INC. ("GIS"), a company located at 18838 HWY 3235

Galliano, Louisiana. Beginning at a time unknown, but prior to November 3, 2012, BEE

contracted with GIS for a multiple-man construction crew. The construction crews were

supervised and managed by defendant CURTIS DANTIN ("DANTIN"), a construction

superintendent employed by GIS. The construction workers on West Delta 32 consisted of GIS

employees and employees from a third-patty subcontractor. The sub-contracted employees were

from the Philippines, WOOD GROUP PSN's operators suppott of the construction effo1ts

included crane operations and issuing necessary hot work permits.

9. Beginning on or about November 3, 2012, MOSS arrived on the West Delta

32 facility. On or about November 6, 2012, DANTIN and GIS construction workers arrived on

the facility. Every person that went onboard the facility at West Delta 32 was required to

complete an orientation form. The orientation form included a provision that stated that each

morning at 6 a.m., the PIC was to conduct a safety meeting and that attendance was mandato1y.

l 0, Some of the construction projects on West Delta 32 required hot work, meaning

welding, grinding, and/or any other activity that may produce a spark. Hot work on an oil

3


production facility is a hazardous activity which is capable of causing injmy or death if done

without due care and adherence to safety procedures and regulations. In November 2012,

WOOD GROUP's company policies mirrored Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Section 250.l 13(c)(l)(i), and required that written permission, commonly refen-ed to as a "hot

work permit," be issued by the welding supervisor or designated PIC before any hot work on a

production platform began. Those involved in the welding and the PIC were required to (I)

conduct a pre-work inspection of the areas where welding or associated hot work was to be

performed, (2) ensure that a faewatch with gas detection equipment had been assigned, and (3)

verify that equipment containing hydrocarbons or other flammable substances had been moved

from within 35 feet of welding areas. If equipment containing flammable substances could not

be moved, it had to be flame proofed or the contents rendered ine1t. A hot work permit was not

valid indefinitely. At a maximum, a hot work permit was valid for 12 hours. Once a hot work

permit expired, all the precautionary steps, including a pre-work inspection, should have been

completed again before a new hot work permit was issued.

11. SRUBAR issued hot work permits for the construction work related to the

WEMCO, separator and/or production header on West Delta 32 for November 8 and 9, 2012.

Starting on or about November 10, 2012, SRUBAR stopped issuing hot work permits and

conducting all-hands safety meetings, and instead delegated the hot work permitting to the

WOOD GROUP PSN "C" operator, who had approximately 7 months' total offshore

experience. Upon instruction by SRUBAR, the "C" operator created each hot work permit

by copying the one SRUBAR did on November 9, 2012 that authorized hot work related to the

WEMCO, separator and production header. SRUBAR did not conduct a pre-work inspection

4


with the constmction crew every day that hot work was petformed, nor did he designate a

firewatch for the hot work areas. Similarly, the "C" operator was not instructed to nor did he

perform a pre-work inspection with the GIS crew before providing each new hot work permit

related to the WEMCO, separator and production header. SRUBAR instructed the "C" operator

to let DANTIN designate a firewatch each day, but that was not done prior to the hot work

permit being issued. After November JO, 2012, the hot work petmits were given to DANTIN

each day by the "C" operator. There were no gas detector readings performed in the hot work

areas for the WEMCO, separator and production header by any WOOD GROUP PSN

employees prior to the issuance of the hot work permits, and there was only one hot work permit

issued each day despite the fact that the areas in which GIS crews were authorized to conduct hot

work were on separate decks of the "E" platform. Those work areas could not be properly

watched and continuously monitored for gas by a single firewatch with one gas detector. The

"C" operator underntood that hot work was continuing in the WEMCO, separator, and production

header areas, and did not ask the GIS crew if they would be performing hot work in other areas.

DANTIN did not ask for hot work permits for specific locations.

12. On or about November 11, 2012, MOSS discovered that piping for the

LACT upgrade was missing. When DANTIN, MOSS, and SRUBAR were unable to locate the

missing piping, in order to save time, a BEE manager decided to have all the piping re-built

except for the additional spool pieces. Without the additional spool pieces, the construction crews

were required to do field welds on the platform in order to connect the divert valve to the sump

line piping. Despite the facility being shut-in, this work required the sump line piping to be

isolated from the Wet Oil Tank and any contents of the piping rendered inett before welding

5


occurred. MOSS and DANTIN knew that the welding of the sump line piping would be required

to complete the LACT unit upgrade. Prior to the construction crew performing any hot work on

the piping, MOSS and DANTIN were required to get authorization and verification from

SRUBAR that the piping was safe. This would require a pre-work inspection with SRUBAR and

the welders, the designation of a faewatch with a gas detector, and a hot work permit

specifically authorizing hot work for the LACT unit or sump line piping.

13. MOSS and DANTIN, however, never coordinated or communicated with

SRUBAR about the project after the piping was re-ordered. On the evening of November 15,

2012, MOSS and DANTIN knew that GIS crews were installing the divert valve for the LACT

unit upgrade and knew that they were going to work in the area again on November 16, 2012.

Yet, neither MOSS nor DANTIN asked SRUBAR to make the sump line safe the morning of

November 16. Neither MOSS nor DANTIN warned GIS crews in their morning safety meeting

to not weld on the sump line piping.

14. After leading a 6:00 a.m. safety meeting with the GIS workers on November

16, 2012, DANTIN instructed some of the Filipino construction workers to begin the welding

of the sump line piping for the LACT unit upgrade, while others finished pmjects on the cella1·

deck and at the floatcell. MOSS only briefly attended the safety meeting and SRUBAR did not

attend at all. Despite SRUBAR having received the Daily Construction Report by email before

7:00 a.m. on November 16 indicating work had been performed on the LACT unit the night

before, SRUBAR did not inquire about the job or wall< the platform to make sure he knew what

was happening. The "C" operator was present in the galley eating breakfast at the same time

GIS was there conducting its 6:00 a.m. safety meeting, but he did not understand that hot

work was intended for areas outside of the WEMCO, sepatator, and pmduction header and

6


did not ask GIS where they would be working on November 16, 2012. The single hot work

permit the "C" operator issued for November 16 did not mention the LACT unit or sump line

piping as areas that were safe for hot work. The GIS crew wrote a WP/SEA, otherwise known as

a Job Safety Analysis worksheet, that all the crew signed, but neither MOSS, DANTIN, nor

SRUBAR read prior to the GIS crew beginning their work.

15. DANTIN was watching as the workers made cuts to the sump line piping

leading to the Wet Oil Tank. The Wet Oil Tank was approximately 20 feet from the welding

area on the sump line piping. The Wet Oil Tank could not be physically moved 35 feet from the

welding area and the hydmcarbons in the Wet Oil Tank had not been rendered inert prior to the

workers beginning the project. The sump line piping which previously contained hydrocarbons

had not been rendered inert. After the cuts to the sump line piping were made, liquid spilled

from the piping. DANTIN and the workers decided that the liquid was water. DANTIN did not

ask SRUBAR or MOSS whether the piping had been rendered inert or determine whether the

liquid coming from the piping posed a threat. DANTIN left the area and returned to the office

located on another platform within the West Delta 32 facility.

16. Following the cuts to the sump line piping, the construction workers

commenced grinding on the piping. At approximately 9:00 a.m. on November 16, 2012, the

construction workers attempted to tack weld on the cut piping with an arc welder. At that time,

hydrocarbon vapors that had escaped from the Wet Oil Tank were ignited. The ignition caused

an explosion setting off a series of additional explosions in the three oil tanks on the platform.

One of the Dry Oil Tanks and the Wet Oil Tank were blown into the Gulf of Mexico. The other

Dry Oil Tank was blown off its base and destroyed the platform crane. Oil spilled into the

Gulf of Mexico causing a sheen on the water. Oil rained down to the lower deck of the platform

7


where workers below the LACT unit had been performing other construction activity. The fire

and explosions that occurred resulted in the deaths of GIS employees Avelino Tajonera, Elroy

Corporal, and Jerome Malagapo. Other workers were seriously burned and physically injured.

17. Hot-work on the LACTwas never coordinated with or communicated to WOOD

GROUP PSN employees. WOOD GROUP PSN, however, admits that its employees were

negligent in the way they authorized hot work on West Delta 32, and that a lack of

communication between SRUBAR, DANTIN, and MOSS contributed to the events that

caused oil to be discharged into the Gulf of Mexico in a harmfill quantity.

READ AND APPROVED:

NADIRA CLARI(E Attorney for Defendant

(_' tA

EMIL Yr

KE TH NELSON

D La, Bar. 28587 Attorney

Senior Trial Counsel, ECS

8

y }l\//y r ' Date


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

U.S_ DfSTRICT ~~<" ~~SW~vB'PE"'D!)TERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AUG~16 TONYA 00

WESTERN DI I ' LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE,

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA* WDLA CRIMINAL NO. 16-CR-00192 * EDLA CRIMINAL NO. 15-CR-00197

VERSUS * WOOD GROUP PSN, INC.

* JUDGE DRELL *MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE

Clean Water Act

33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(l)(A) & 1321(b)(3)

Title 33, United States Code, Section 1319(c)(l)(A) provides for criminal

penalties for any entity or person who negligently violates Title 33, United

States Code, Section 1321(b)(3). That Section prohibits the discharge of oil in

a quantity that may be harmful to the natural resources of the United States

in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,

Title 43, United States Code, Section 1331 et. seq. Pursuant to Title 40, Code

of Federal Regulation, Section 110.3(b), a harmful quantity of oil is defined as

an amount of oil that will "[c]ause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the

1


surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be

deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines."

In order to find WOOD GROUP PSN, INC. guilty of this crime, a jury

would have to be convinced that the government has proved each of the

following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Defendant negligently;

2. Discharged, or caused the discharge of oil;

3. Into waters of the United States or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and

4. In a quantity that may be harmful to the natural resources of the United States.

Corporations can only act through individuals who act on its behalf and

corporations are held criminally liable for acts of its employees if the

employee/agent acted within the scope of his or her authority, and that the

employee/agent intended, at least in part, to benefit the corporation. See New

York Cent. and Hudson River R.R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481,

495(1909).

MARTIN Mel WOODGRO Defendant

DATE

2


United States v. Wood Group, PSN, Inc. WDLA CRIMINAL NO. 16-CR-00192 EDLA CRIMINAL NO. 15-CR-00197 Elements of Offense Continued

NADIRA CLARKE Katten Muchin Roseman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007-5118 Telephone: (202) 625-3767

STEPHANIE A. FINLEY

00'·0..C'-LL"-'>

Assistant United States Attorney 800 Lafayette Street, Suite 2200 Lafayette, LA 70501-6832 Telephone: (337) 262-6618

3

DATE

1DA E

Documents

Case 6:16-cr-00192-DDD-PJH Document 5 Filed 08/10/16 …lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/corporate-prosecution-registry/... · United States A ftorney's Oj]ice Eastern District of' Louisiana