# WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICES — Notice of Amendment

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

420025006M_Order Directing Amendment_03032003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420025006M/420025006M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03032003.pdf

420025006M_Order Directing Amendment_03032003.pdf

@
U.SDeportment of Tronsoortotion
Rereorch qrd
Speclol Progrcms Administr{Ition
400 Seventh Street, S W
Washrnglon. 0 C 20590
lfAR - 3 2003
Mr. Robert T. Cronk
Vice President, Technical Services
Williams Energy Services ComPany
1800 South Baltimore Street
Tulsa, OK 74119
Re: CPF No. 4-2002-5006M
Dear Mr. Cronk:
Enclosed is the Order Directing Amendment issued by the Associate Administrator for
Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. The Order finds that you have addressed the
inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment. Your receipt of the
Order Directing Amendment constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R' $ 190'5'
This enforcement action is now closed.
Sincerely,
04 ,r, -/ t
pr {'rtt"hiljh, }&&'
' Gwendollm M. Hff
Pipeline ComPliance Registry
Office of Pipeline SafetY
Enclosure
Michael Pearson
Manager, Pipeline lntegrttY



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAT'ETY
WASHINGTON. DC 20590
ln the Matter of
Williams Energy Services,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
CPFNo. 4-2002-5006M
ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT
During March 12-14, 2002, representatives of the Southwestem and Eastern Regions, Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected Williams Energy Services'(Respondent) integrity management
program at Respondent's facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As a result of the inspection, the Southwest
Regional Director, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 15, 2002, a Notice of
Amendment(1.{OA). TheNOAallegedinadequaciesinRespondent'sintegritymanagementprogram
and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's segment identification procedures to comply
with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. g 195.452(b).
Respondent responded to the NOA by letter dated June 13,2002. Respondent did not contest the
allegations set forth in the NOA but requested a hearing to discuss the revisions Respondent planned
to make to address the cited inadequacies. An informal hearing was held on October 3, 2002 in the
Southwestern Regional office. Respondent submitted amended procedures by letter dated
November l,?002.
FiNDING
The NOA alleged that Respondent's segment identification procedures did not include adequate
technical iustification for -
using a 1000-foot buffer zone to identify high consequence areas that could be affected by
a release spread by land or air;
using the Quest air dispersion model for pipeline analysis;
using a five-mile downstream buffer to identify areas that could be affecled by liquid spills;
and
excluding spill transport analysis by streams within the land buffer.



a
At the October hearing, Respondent discussed its planned revisions to its segment identification
procedures. Respondent explained its analyses and technical justifications used in its identification
process and how this information would be included in its revised integrity management program
procedures.
In its November I submittal, Respondent explained that it modified its identification procedures to
reflect that Respondent will analyze each pipeline transporting highly volatile liquids based on
dispersion calculations and modeling, and each rehned products pipeline based on overland spread
calculations and modeling. Respondent has modified its procedures to provide justification for the
frve-mile downstream buffer zone for waterway crossings and to include spill transport analyses by
rtraterways that intersect or are within the high conscquence area buffer zone. Respondent included
the amended procedures and technical justifications in its submittal. The Southwestern Region
reviewed the revised procedures.
Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that Respondent's original integrity
management program procedures as described in the NOA were inadequate to ensure safe operation
of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Respondent
need not take any further action with respect to the matters in this case.
The terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment are effective upon receipt.
llAR - 3 2003
Date Issued
h
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 4684