{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420025006M","title":"WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICES — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-05-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420025006m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420025006m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420025006m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420025006M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICES. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(b)(1). The case was opened on 2002-05-15 and is reported as closed as of 2003-03-03. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420025006M_Order Directing Amendment_03032003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420025006M/420025006M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03032003.pdf\n\n420025006M_Order Directing Amendment_03032003.pdf\n\n@\nU.SDeportment of Tronsoortotion\nRereorch qrd\nSpeclol Progrcms Administr{Ition\n400 Seventh Street, S W\nWashrnglon. 0 C 20590\nlfAR - 3 2003\nMr. Robert T. Cronk\nVice President, Technical Services\nWilliams Energy Services ComPany\n1800 South Baltimore Street\nTulsa, OK 74119\nRe: CPF No. 4-2002-5006M\nDear Mr. Cronk:\nEnclosed is the Order Directing Amendment issued by the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. The Order finds that you have addressed the\ninadequacies in your procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment. Your receipt of the\nOrder Directing Amendment constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R' $ 190'5'\nThis enforcement action is now closed.\nSincerely,\n04 ,r, -/ t\npr {'rtt\"hiljh, }&&'\n' Gwendollm M. Hff\nPipeline ComPliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure\nMichael Pearson\nManager, Pipeline lntegrttY\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAT'ETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nln the Matter of\nWilliams Energy Services,\nRespondent.\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPFNo. 4-2002-5006M\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nDuring March 12-14, 2002, representatives of the Southwestem and Eastern Regions, Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), inspected Williams Energy Services'(Respondent) integrity management\nprogram at Respondent's facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As a result of the inspection, the Southwest\nRegional Director, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 15, 2002, a Notice of\nAmendment(1.{OA). TheNOAallegedinadequaciesinRespondent'sintegritymanagementprogram\nand proposed to require amendment of Respondent's segment identification procedures to comply\nwith the requirements of 49 C.F.R. g 195.452(b).\nRespondent responded to the NOA by letter dated June 13,2002. Respondent did not contest the\nallegations set forth in the NOA but requested a hearing to discuss the revisions Respondent planned\nto make to address the cited inadequacies. An informal hearing was held on October 3, 2002 in the\nSouthwestern Regional office. Respondent submitted amended procedures by letter dated\nNovember l,?002.\nFiNDING\nThe NOA alleged that Respondent's segment identification procedures did not include adequate\ntechnical iustification for -\nusing a 1000-foot buffer zone to identify high consequence areas that could be affected by\na release spread by land or air;\nusing the Quest air dispersion model for pipeline analysis;\nusing a five-mile downstream buffer to identify areas that could be affecled by liquid spills;\nand\nexcluding spill transport analysis by streams within the land buffer.\n\n\n\na\nAt the October hearing, Respondent discussed its planned revisions to its segment identification\nprocedures. Respondent explained its analyses and technical justifications used in its identification\nprocess and how this information would be included in its revised integrity management program\nprocedures.\nIn its November I submittal, Respondent explained that it modified its identification procedures to\nreflect that Respondent will analyze each pipeline transporting highly volatile liquids based on\ndispersion calculations and modeling, and each rehned products pipeline based on overland spread\ncalculations and modeling. Respondent has modified its procedures to provide justification for the\nfrve-mile downstream buffer zone for waterway crossings and to include spill transport analyses by\nrtraterways that intersect or are within the high conscquence area buffer zone. Respondent included\nthe amended procedures and technical justifications in its submittal. The Southwestern Region\nreviewed the revised procedures.\nAccordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that Respondent's original integrity\nmanagement program procedures as described in the NOA were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Respondent\nneed not take any further action with respect to the matters in this case.\nThe terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment are effective upon receipt.\nllAR - 3 2003\nDate Issued\nh\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":4684}