{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120185007","title":"WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-01-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.52(a)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120185007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.52(a)(2). The case was opened on 2018-01-18 and is reported as closed as of 2019-03-20. Proposed civil penalty: $174,100. Assessed civil penalty: $174,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120185007_Final Order_03202019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185007/120185007_Final%20Order_03202019.pdf\n\n120185007_Final Order_03202019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185007/120185007_Final%20Order_03202019_text.pdf\n\n120185007_NOPV-PCP_01182018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185007/120185007_NOPV-PCP_01182018.pdf\n\n120185007_NOPV-PCP_01182018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185007/120185007_NOPV-PCP_01182018_text.pdf\n\n120185007_Operator Response Notice_03092018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185007/120185007_Operator%20Response%20Notice_03092018.pdf\n\n120185007_Final Order_03202019_text.pdf\n\nMarch 20, 2019\nMr. Alan S. Armstrong\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nThe Williams Companies, Inc.\nOne Williams Center\nTulsa, OK 74172\nRe: CPF No. 1-2018-5007\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nWilliams Partners, LP. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $174,100.\nThis is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated\nMarch 9, 2018. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is effective upon the date of mailing, 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\nMs. Amy Shank, Director-Pipeline Safety & Asset Integrity, Williams Field Services\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nWilliams Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2018-5007\na subsidiary of The Williams Companies, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn January 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninvestigated an accident that occurred at the Williams Field Services’ Houston Metering and\nRegulating Station (Houston M&R Station), near the town of Houston, Pennsylvania. Williams\nField Services is a subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP (collectively, Williams or Respondent).\nWilliams has pipeline operations that include the gathering, processing and interstate\ntransportation of natural gas and natural gas liquids, owning and operating more than 33,000\nmiles of pipelines in the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated January 18, 2018, 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 Williams\nhad committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$174,100 for the alleged violations.\nWilliams responded to the Notice by letter dated March 9, 2018 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $174,100. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator to make findings of violation and to issue this final order without further\nproceedings.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Williams did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\n1 The Williams Companies, Inc., owns the majority shares of Williams Partners, LP. See\nhttp://co.williams.com/operations-2/. Current as of September 19, 2018.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5007\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(2), which states:\n§ 195.52 Immediate notice of certain accidents.\n(a) Notice requirements. At the earliest practicable moment following\ndiscovery of a release of the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide transported\nresulting in an event described in § 195.50, the operator of the system must\ngive notice, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, of any failure\nthat:\n(1) …\noperator; . . . .2\n(2) Resulted in either a fire or explosion not intentionally set by the\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(2) by failing to provide\nnotice to the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment following the\ndiscovery of a release of hazardous liquid at the Houston M&R Station that resulted in a fire and\nexplosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on December 25, 2014, at 13:23 Eastern\nStandard Time (EST), a Williams representative notified the NRC of a release that had occurred\nat the Houston M&R Station on December 24, 2014, at 23:50 EST. According to the Notice, the\naccident was reported to the NRC13 hours and 33 minutes after Williams had confirmed the\nrelease.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(2) by failing to provide\nnotice to the NRC at the earliest practicable moment following the discovery of a release of\nhazardous liquid at the Houston M&R Station that resulted in a fire and explosion.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by failing to follow written\nconstruction specifications or standards during the commissioning of the Houston M&R Station,\nwhich was placed into service in September 2014. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Williams\nfailed to commission a new nitrogen system when commissioning the Houston M&R Station.\nAccording to the Notice, the backup nitrogen system was designed to automatically activate in\nthe event of the loss of main instrument air supply to the station and that would allow continued\ntemporary operation of the valves, overpressure protection, and safety devices at the station.\nAfter the accident, PHMSA reviewed Williams’ procedures, facility-design information,\nconstruction records, accident report (Form F7000.1), incident analysis causal map, and\nSupervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data, and conducted interviews with\nWilliams personnel.\n2 Section 195.52 was amended on January 23, 2017, to require that notice of an accident be provided at the earliest\npracticable moment, but no later than one hour after confirmed discovery. 82 Fed. Reg. 7999.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5007\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Williams’ procedure (Pre-Startup Safety Review, Procedure No. 9.09-\nADM-001-PSSR Procedure Revision 8, dated 1/1/2011) required verification that construction\nhad been performed “in accordance with design and specifications” (Section 2.1.3), and that\nequipment and assets had been inspected, tested and calibrated in accordance with design and\nspecifications (Section 2.1.3.2). According to PHMSA, such verification did not take place for\nseveral reasons.\nFirst, PHMSA alleged that Williams’ own post-accident investigation revealed that the outlet\nvalves on the backup nitrogen system had all been closed (indicating they had not functioned),\nand that Williams could not provide documentation of pre-service testing or pre-accident\nmaintenance. Second, PHMSA alleged that the Houston M&R Station Piping and\nInstrumentation Diagram had incorrectly identified the backup nitrogen system as two air storage\nracks. Finally, PHMSA alleged that Williams’ own causal analysis of the accident had found at\nleast five deficiencies in the company’s own specifications and procedures, including a lack of\nguidelines for standard facility procedures, a failure to identify issues with the backup air system\nduring project design, execution or commissioning, and inadequate design documentation to\ncorrectly implement back-up.\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. § 195.202 by failing to follow written\nconstruction specifications or standards during the commissioning of the Houston M&R Station,\nwhich was placed into service in September 2014.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $174,100 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.52(a)(2), for failing to provide notice to the NRC at the earliest practicable moment\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5007\nPage 4\nfollowing the discovery of a release of hazardous liquid that resulted in a fire and explosion at\nthe Houston M&R Station. Williams neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Williams did give evidence of its\nupdated internal procedures to provide a more robust process for ensuring compliance, as well as\nincreased training to forestall a future reporting problem. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $24,400 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(2).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $149,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.202, for failing to follow written construction specifications or standards during the\ncommissioning of the Houston M&R Station, which was placed into service in September 2014.\nWilliams neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying\nelimination of the proposed penalty. Williams did provide documentation of revised procedures\n(Pre-Startup Safety Review, Procedure No. 9.09-ADM-001), along with accompanying training\nfocused on correct engineering, robust company standards, design reviews and operational\nexpertise. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $149,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.202.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $174,100, which has been paid in\nfull.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 20, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12422}