{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420045006","title":"WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICES — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(h)(4).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420045006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420045006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420045006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420045006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICES. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(h)(4). The case was opened on 2004-03-15 and is reported as closed as of 2005-09-15. Proposed civil penalty: $105,000. Assessed civil penalty: $105,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420045006_Final Order_08182005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420045006/420045006_Final%20Order_08182005.pdf\n\ncpf420045006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420045006/cpf420045006.pdf\n\nMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY (420045006).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420045006/MAGELLAN%20PIPELINE%20COMPANY%20(420045006).pdf\n\n420045006_Final Order_08182005.pdf\n\n@\nU.5. Deportment\nof Tronsportotion\nrlpetine ono\nHozordous Moteriols Sofety\nAdministrotlon AUG 1 I ?005\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nRick A. Olsen\nVice President, Pipeline Operations\nMagellan Pipeline Company\nOne Williams Center\nP.O. Box 22186\nTulsa, OK 74121-2186\nRe: CPF No. 4-2004-5006\nDear Mr. Olsen:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-refercnced case. Itmakes findings ofviolation and assesses acivilpenaltyof $105,000. The\npenaltypayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payment. Your receipt ofthe Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C'F.R.\n$ 190.s.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure\nccl\nRod M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region, OPS\nMichael C. Pearson\nManager, Asset Integnty, Magellan Midstream Partners, L'P'\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAI'ETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELIM SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nMagellan Pipeline Company\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 4-20A4-5006\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 5-9 and May 19-23,2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives ofthe Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection ofRespondent's facilities and\nrecords in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS,\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated March 15 ,2004, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. S 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had violat ed 49 C.F.R. 5 I95 .452 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $ 105,000\nfor the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 16, 2004 (Response). In its response,\nRespondent indicated that it had additional information that it believed was relevant to the alleged\nviolation that was not provided to OPS at the time of the inspection and requested a hearing. The\nhearing was held in Houston, Texas on September 15,2004.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(h)(a)(i) bV failing to temporarily\nreduce operating pressure or shut down its Tulsa to Shelton #3 l2-inch pipeline immediately\nfollowing its identification of numerous anomalies meeting the criteria for \"immediate repair\nconditions\" until repairs of these conditions could be completed. With respect to seven of the\nimmediate repair conditions, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to respond until\napproximately one month after the integrity assessment in which they were identified was conducted'\nAt the heaing, Respondent explained that under the policy it had in place at the time, it did not\ndesignate the date of \"discovery\" of arepair condition as the date that the anomaly was identified\nin the inteerity assessment, but rather, it designated the discovery date as the date the identified\nanomaly was subsequently excavated (and repaired). Under $ 195.452(h)(2), however, discovery\nof a condition occurs \"when an operatorhas adequate information about the condition to determine\nthat the condition represents a potential threat\" to the integrity of the pipeline. In this case, the\n\n\n\n2\nintegrity assessment was conducted by internal inspection, meaning that information such as the\npercentage of metal loss from corrosion and the magnitude of dent-type deformations sufficient to\nenable a determination that the potential exists for an integrity threat at the corresponding location\nwas available to Respondent in the internal inspection results. Therefore, Respondent was not\njustified in failing to take remedial measures until subsequent excavations were performed.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.452(h)(a)(i) by failing to temporarily reduce\noperating pressure or shut down its Tulsa to Shelton #3 l2-inchpipeline immediately following its\nidentification of the seven specified anomalies meeting the criteria for immediate repair conditions.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. S 60122 and 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $105,000 for Respondent's failure to take immediate action\nfollowing its identification of certain anomalies on its Tulsa to Shelton #3 t2-inchpipeline meeting\nthe applicable criteria for immediate repair conditions. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged\nits failure to take immediate action with respect to the seven specified conditions, but explained that\nit had now changed its policy in this regard and that as a result, it now designated discovery as the\ntime of the integrity assessment, not the time a subsequent excavation was conducted.\nThe integrity management program regulations require pipeline operators to take immediate action\nincluding temporarily reducing operating pressure or shutting down a line until repairs can be made\nwhen anomalies meeting the criteria for immediaterepair conditions are identified in the course of\nanintegrityassessment. Underparagraph(I)of$ 195.452(h)(4),immediaterepairconditionsinclude\nthose in which 80 percent of the pipe wall thickness has been lost due to corrosion, a significant\nreduction in remaining pipe wall strength has occurred, or dents greater than 6 percent the pipe\ndiameter are present. For conditions that are less likely to constitute immediate threats, paragraphs\n(ii) and (iii) of the regulation provide operators with additional time for taking appropriate action.\nWhileRespondent eventuallychangeditspolicyto bringits discoverypractices into compliancewith\nthe regulation, taking immediate action when an integrity threatening condition is identified is a\nfundamental obligation of all pipeline operators and should never have been compromised in\nformulating its company policy to begin with. Respondent has not submitted information that\n\n\n\n. *\n3\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $105,000 for the above-described violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(1).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $105,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is\nnot made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days of\nRespondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing\nof a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent\nsubmits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and\nthe right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nAUG 18 2005\nStacey Gerard\nDate Issued\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9432}