TRI-STATES NGL PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDFcpf_220025014.pdf#

220025014_Final Order_05042005.pdf, page 1Official PDF@ U.S. Deponment of Tronsporlotion Plpellne ond Hozqrdoui moledoB Sototy Admlnistrotion 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washlnglon, D.C. 20590 MAY - 4 ilrl Mr. Robert Purgason Vice President WTS - NGL Pipeline ComPanY One Williams Center, 35h Floor Tulsa,OK 74172 RE: CPF No. 2-2002-5414 Dear Mr. Purgason: Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding ofviolation and assesses a civil penalty of$20,000' I acknowledge receipt of, and accept WFS - NGL Pipeline Company, William Energy Service's, payment da-ted June 28, 2002, in the amount of $20,000 as payment in full of the civil penalty "rr"rr"a against Respondent in the Final Order. This case is now closeC' Your receipt of the Final Order conititutes service of that document under 49 C'F'R' $ 190'5' Sincerely, +^^lL James ReYnolds PiPeline ComPliance Registry Office of PiPeline SafetY Enclosure cc: Mr. Michael C. Pearson, PE, Williams Energy Services Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, OPS Southem Region#

220025014_Final Order_05042005.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AIID HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAF'ETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAF'ETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of WF'S -NGL PIPELINE COMPANY Respondent. CPn'No. 2-2002-5014 FINAL ORDER During May 6-10, 2002, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southem, conducted an inspection an on-sitepipeline safetyinspection ofWFS - NGL Pipeline Company, Williams Energy Services, facilities in Alabama and Mississippi and records in Coden, Alabama. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 30, 2002, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice)t. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. S 195.420(b) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $20,000 for the alleged violation. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 24, 2002 (Response). Respondent did not contest the allegation ofviolation or proposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing, consequently Respondent waived its right to one. F'INDINGS OFVIOLATION Uncontested Respondentdidnotcontesttheallegedviolationof$195.420(b),intheNotice. Accordingly, Ifind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 195, urs more fully described in the Notice: 49 C.F.R.$195.a20(b)- failure to ilspect each mainline valve to determine that they are functioningproperlyatintervals notexceeding7/zmonths,but at leasttwice each calendar vear. This case, however, is no longer before RSPA for decision. Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was created to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, I 18 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004). See also, 70 fea. Reg. g-91 6ebruary 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety functions to the Administrator, PHMSA.#

220025014_Final Order_05042005.pdf, page 3This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF'PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a 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. 49 U.S.C. S 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, good faittr by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $20,000 for violation of 49 CFR $195.420(b), as Respondent failed to inspect each mainline valve to determine that they are functioning properly at intervals not ex ceedingTYzmonths, but at least twice each calendar year. Respondent did not contest the violation or the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penaltyof $20,000, alreadypaid by the Respondent. WARNINGITEM The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items I and 2 but wamed Respondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items. Respondent presented information in its response showing that it has addressed the cited items. Respondent is again warned that if OPS finds a violation in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be taken. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt. flo /(- L't-' qfu-rhMAY - 4 2005 Stacey Gerard Date IssuedAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#