{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420161008","title":"TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-07-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.5, 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(1), 192.751(b), 192.805(a), 192.805(b), 192.805(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420161008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5,  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(1),  192.751(b),  192.805(a),  192.805(b),  192.805(c). The case was opened on 2016-07-29 and is reported as closed as of 2019-10-10. Proposed civil penalty: $1,600,000. Assessed civil penalty: $1,400,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09162019.pdf\n\n420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf\n\n420161008_Final Order_12202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Final%20Order_12202018.pdf\n\n420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Final%20Order_12202018_text.pdf\n\n420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07292016.pdf\n\n420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07292016_text.pdf\n\n420161008_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_01112019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01112019.pdf\n\n420161008_Operator Post Hearing Brief-Response to Region Recommendation_01302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Brief-Response%20to%20Region%20Recommendation_01302018.pdf\n\n420161008_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_08252016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_08252016.pdf\n\n420161008_Operator_Pre-Hearing_Submission_06132017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161008/420161008_Operator_Pre-Hearing_Submission_06132017.pdf\n\n420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf\n\nDecember 20, 2018\nMr. Alan S. Armstrong\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nWilliams Partners\nOne Williams Center\nTulsa, OK 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-1008\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $1,400,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a consolidated entity of Williams Partners, LP,\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as\nprovided 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. David Nelson, Esq., Partner, Kean Miller, LLP, Il City Plaza 400 Convention Street,\nSuite 700, Baton Rouge, LA 70802\nMs. Stephanie Timmermeyer, Vice President of Safety and Regulatory Compliance\nMr. John Suchar, Williams Partners, LP, 525 Central Park Drive Oklahoma City, OK\n73105\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 )\n)\n)\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, )\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________________ )\n) CPF No. 4-2016-1008\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom October 8, 2015 through May 26, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an investigation of an incident involving the pipeline system of\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a consolidated entity of Williams Partners, LP\n(Transco or Respondent) in Gibson, Louisiana. Transco is a wholly owned subsidiary of\nWilliams Partners, LP, and operates a 9,700-mile natural gas pipeline system extending from the\nGulf coast to the Eastern seaboard.1\nThe investigation arose out of an explosion at Respondent’s Station 62 Facility in Gibson,\nLouisiana. The explosion killed four men and injured two others.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 29, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Transco failed to accurately report the incident in a timely manner,\nin violation of 49 C.F.R. §191.5, committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $1,600,000 for the alleged violations.\nWilliams Partners, LP responded to the Notice by letter dated August 25, 2016 (Response).\nWilliams contested one of the allegations and the associated civil penalty, asked for withdrawal\nof the compliance order, and requested an informal meeting to discuss a consent order.\nRespondent also requested an in-person hearing, if a compromise settlement could not be\nreached.\nA hearing was subsequently held on July 14, 2017, in Houston, Texas with an attorney from the\nOffice of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by\n1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1483096/000148309616000021/wpz_20151231x10k.htm (last accessed\non May 3, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1008\nPage 2\ncounsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a Post-Hearing Statement for the record, by\nletter dated January 30, 2018 (Closing).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191 and Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, which states:\n§ 191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later\nthan one hour after confirmed discovery, each operator must give notice in\naccordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in\n§ 191.3.\n(b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made\nto the National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424-8802 (in\nWashington, DC, 202 267-2675) or electronically at\nhttp://www.nrc.uscg.mil and must include the following information:\n(1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone\nnumbers.\n(2) The location of the incident.\n(3) The time of the incident.\n(4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any.\n(5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are\nrelevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages.\n(c) Within 48 hours after the confirmed discovery of an incident, to the extent\npracticable, an operator must revise or confirm its initial telephonic notice required\nin paragraph (b) of this section with an estimate of the amount of product released, an\nestimate of the number of fatalities and injuries, and all other significant facts that are\nknown by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the\ndamages. If there are no changes or revisions to the initial report, the operator must\nconfirm the estimates in its initial report.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to give the required\nnotice to the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment following\ndiscovery of the incident. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transco deliberately withheld\ninformation regarding the number of known injuries and fatalities in its first report to the NRC.\nAt the hearing, the Respondent denied that it had withheld any information, and stated that it\nsubmitted all information known to it at the time.2 Transco also submitted evidence\ndemonstrating that it submitted an amended report to the NRC later the same day that correctly\nreported the number of injuries and fatalities. The Region countered that assertion by submitting\na news article published online at 11:32 a.m. that reported various injuries and fatalities. The\n2 The first NRC report was submitted at 12:06 p.m. CST (October 8, 2015). Transco submitted an Amended Report\nat 3:23 p.m. that same day.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1008\nPage 3\nnews article, however, was updated throughout the day, so it is unclear exactly when the\ninformation regarding fatalities and injuries was available.\nThis issue can only be decided by weighing the probity of the witness testimony, both at the time\nof the accident and at the hearing. Mr. Ross Sinclair, Manager of Pipeline Control, Transco,\nmade the first report to the NRC, and stated that there were “no” fatalities and “unknown”\ninjuries. Ms. Molly Atkins, OPS’ investigator, stated in the Violation Report that Mr. Shane\nFrasier, Engineer II, Williams, stated that “Williams Senior Leadership had not allowed the\nrelease of information during the preliminary stage of the incident response about injuries or\nfatalities.”3 I assessed the testimony of Mr. Ross Sinclair and Mr. Frasier given at the hearing,\nand I have since read both their written affidavits. Ms. Atkins was not available to testify at the\nhearing. OPS and the Respondent offer competing claims as to the timing and sequence of\nevents on October 8, 2015. Therefore, the remaining question is whether there is evidence to\nsupport OPS’ contention that Transco violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.\nEven if I were to accept OPS’s argument that Transco failed to provide the correct information\n“as soon as practicable” at the time of the first NRC report, Transco submitted an updated report.\nThe second NRC report was submitted at 3:23 p.m., approximately three hours after the first\nNRC report. The Violation Report does not mention the second NRC report – and it appears that\nOPS did not consider the existence of this report when deciding to issue this NOPV.\nIn its Post Hearing Brief, Respondent makes much of the fact that its delay in reporting the\ntotality of the circumstances did not obstruct the OPS investigation in any way. I disagree. The\npurpose of the reporting requirement in 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 is to remove any and all need for OPS\nto question an operator regarding certain facts. The Violation Report states that OPS, when\nturned away by Transco’s regulatory compliance personnel, had to reach out to field operations\npersonnel onsite to learn the facts on the ground. The withholding of critical facts, including the\nnumber of fatalities, is unacceptable. OPS’ time is better served investigating, as opposed to\nprodding operators regarding facts that must be reported “as soon as is practicable.” However,\nthere is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that Transco failed to give immediate notice\nof the number of injuries and fatalities.\nAccordingly, after considering the evidence, I withdraw Item 1.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.751(b), which states:\n§ 192.751 Prevention of accidental ignition.\nEach operator shall take steps to minimize the danger of accidental\nignition of gas in any structure or area where the presence of gas constitutes\na hazard of fire or explosion, including the following:\n(a) …\n(b) Gas or electric welding or cutting may not be performed on pipe or\non pipe components that contain a combustible mixture of gas and air in the\narea of work.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 29, 2016)(on file with PHMSA), at 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1008\nPage 4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.751 by failing to take adequate\nsteps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in an area where the presence of gas\nduring welding constituted a combustion hazard. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transco\nproceeded with welding when a combustible mixture of gas and air was detected within the 42-\ninch liquids header of the slug catcher. Respondent questions the wording in Item 2, and\nvehemently denies that Transco failed to stop work after detecting a combustible mixture of gas\nand air inside the header. The NOPV states that “Transco failed to stop work when gas was\ndetected inside the 42-inch liquids header and allowed welding to start when a combustible\nmixture of gas and air existed…” I do not read this statement as imputing actual knowledge of a\ncombustible mixture to Transco; the title of the regulation is “Prevention of accidental ignition\n(emphasis added).” I read the pertinent sentence in the NOPV as properly stating that, prior to\nthe beginning of welding, Transco detected some gas in the header. At some point, when\nwelding started, a combustible mixture of gas and air was present, thus the ensuing explosion\nand fire. In any case, Transco violated § 192.751 because it failed to minimize the danger of\naccidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where the presence of gas constitutes a hazard\nof fire or explosion, including by performing gas or electric welding on a pipe or pipe\ncomponents that contained a combustible mixture of gas and air in the area of work. Transco did\nnot contest this allegation of violation “if prior knowledge is not required” - and it is not.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.751 by performing gas or electric welding on pipe or on pipe components that contained a\ncombustible mixture of gas and air in the area of work.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations\nand maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required\nby paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following,\nif applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its own\nprocedure for hot work, which requires training for all employees supervising or issuing hot\nwork permits. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transco’s contractor personnel were not\nproperly trained, as required by its’ WilSOP Safety Manual Procedure 640.05 – Hot Work.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1008\nPage 5\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to prepare and follow its own manual of written procedures for\nconducting operation and maintenance activities.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to\nperform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is\nqualified;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 by failing to follow its written\nqualification plan. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its Operator\nQualification Plan by allowing unqualified personnel to perform covered tasks, failing to identify\nand verify applicable covered tasks for contractor personnel, failing to ensure the proper\nqualification of contractor personnel, and failing to have a covered task for vapor barriers.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805 by failing to prepare and follow its own manual of written procedures for\nconducting operation and maintenance activities.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations\nand maintenance activities are conducted.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1008\nPage 6\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required\nby paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following,\nif applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its own\nprocedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing its pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Respondent’s WilSop Operations & Maintenance Manual Procedure 10.22.02- Gas\nHandling Plans, Section 2.40, required the development of a detailed purge plan for the complex\npurging of the slug catcher.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its own procedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing\nits pipeline.\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.4\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the\nviolation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice\nmay require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $1,600,000 for the violations cited\nabove.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $200,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 191.5, by failing to give the required notice to the National Response Center (NRC) at\nthe earliest practicable moment following discovery of the incident. At the hearing and in its\nPost-Hearing Brief, the Respondent argued that the regulation does not require operators to\nspeculate, and that Transco did report all information known to it at the time. As discussed\nabove, I withdraw Item I. Based upon the foregoing, I also withdraw the associated civil penalty\nof $200,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.\n4 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. 4-2016-1008\nPage 7\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $200,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.751, for failing to take adequate steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition\nof gas in an area where the presence of gas during welding constituted a combustion hazard. As\nI discussed above, Transco’s main point of contention involved whether or not actual knowledge\nof a combustible mixture was required in order to find a violation of this regulation. Transco\nneither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in\nthe proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $200,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.751.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $400,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605, for failing to follow its own procedure for hot work, which requires training\nfor all employees supervising or issuing hot work permits. Transco neither contested the\nallegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $400,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $400,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.805, for failing to follow its own written qualification plan. Transco neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $400,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $400,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605, for failing to follow its own procedure for operating, maintaining, and\nrepairing its pipeline. Transco neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $400,000 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1-5 in the Notice for violations of\n49 C.F.R. §§ 191.5, 192.751, 192.605, 192.805 and 192.605, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in\nthe proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.751 (Item 2), Respondent has satisfied the\nterms of the Compliance Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 3), Respondent has satisfied the\nterms of the Compliance Order.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1008\nPage 8\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.805 (Item 4), Respondent has satisfied the\nterms of the Compliance Order.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 5), Respondent has satisfied the\nterms of the Compliance Order.\nWith regard to the violation of § 191.5 (Item 1), Respondent argued that the compliance terms\nshould be withdrawn given that, in its estimation, Transco complied with the regulation. As\ndiscussed above, I have withdrawn Item 1 and the associated compliance item.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 20, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 16, 2019\nMr. Alan S. Armstrong\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nWilliams Partners, LP\nOne Williams Center\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-1008\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Transcontinental\nGas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP. This Decision does not\nmodify the supporting explanation for the findings associated with Item 1. This enforcement\naction closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Decision by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. John F. Jakuback, Kean Miller, LLP, II City Plaza, 400 Convention Street, Suite 700,\nBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70802\nMs. Stephanie Timmermeyer, Vice President of Safety and Regulatory Compliance,\nWilliams Partners\nMr. Mark Cluff, Vice President of Safety and Operational Discipline, Williams Partners\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 )\n)\n)\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP, )\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2016-1008\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nIn a December 20, 2018 Final Order1, I found that Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,\nLLC, a consolidated entity of Williams Partners, LP (Transco or Petitioner), committed various\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Transco was assessed a civil penalty of $1,400,000, and\nordered to take certain corrective actions to address the violations. This case arose out of an\nexplosion at Respondent’s Station 62 Facility in Gibson, Louisiana that killed four men and\ninjured two others.\nOn January 11, 2019, Transco submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition)2 of the Final\nOrder. Even though the Final Order withdrew Item 1 of the Notice of Probable Violation, the\nPetition requested that a paragraph discussing this allegation be removed from the Final Order.\nGiven that there is no legal or factual basis for this request, I am denying the Petition and\naffirming the Final Order without modification.\nBackground\nFrom October 8, 2015, through May 26, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), investigated the accident. OPS also inspected Transco’s procedures and records.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice\nof Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to\n1 Transco, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2016-1006 (December 20, 2018).\n2 Petition for Reconsideration of Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, dated January 11, 2019 (Petition).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2016-1008\nPage 2\nTransco.3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Transco\nfailed to accurately report the incident in a timely manner, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5,\ncommitted various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$1,600,000, and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain corrective actions to address the\nalleged violations.\nWilliams Partners, LP, on behalf of Transco, responded to the Notice by letter dated August 25,\n2016. Williams contested one of the allegations and the associated civil penalty, asked for a\nwithdrawal of the compliance order, and requested an informal meeting to discuss a consent\norder. Petitioner also requested an in-person hearing, if a compromise settlement could not be\nreached.4\nA hearing was subsequently held on July 14, 2017, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the\nOffice of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Petitioner provided a post-\nhearing statement for the record by letter dated August 14, 2017. The Southwest Region also\nsubmitted a post-hearing statement for the record by letter dated August 15, 2017. Pursuant to\n§ 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of Petitioner’s arguments on\nDecember 28, 2017.\nOn December 20, 2018, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order5 in this\nmatter. The Final Order withdrew one alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 (Item 1), but found\nthat Transco committed the remainder of the alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.751(b) (Item\n2), 192.605 (Items 3 and 5), and 192.805 (Item 4). The Final Order found that Transco satisfied\nthe proposed compliance order and assessed a civil penalty of $1,400,000. The Final Order also\nstated that these findings of violation would be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Transco.\nOn January 11, 2019, Transco filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Transco did not seek reconsideration of the findings or the assessed civil\npenalty. Instead, Transco requested a revision of the supporting explanation for the withdrawal\nof Item 1. Under § 190.243(c), the filing of a petition stays the payment of the assessed civil\npenalty. However, unless the Associate Administrator otherwise provides, it does not stay any\nrequired corrective action.\nOn January 30, 2019, OPS submitted a Region Response to the Petition (Response), and on\nFebruary 7, 2019, Transco filed a Motion to Strike Southwest Region’s Response or, in the\n3 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), C.P.F. 4-2016-\n1008 (July 29, 2016) (available at\nhttps://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/420161008/420161008 NOPV%20PCP%20PCO 0\n7292016.pdf)\n4 Williams Response to Notice, (August 25, 2016) (on file with PHMSA).\n5 In the Matter of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2016-1008, December\n20, 2018 (Final Order).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2016-1008\nPage 3\nalternative, a Reply to the Response (Reply). This Decision was made without consideration of\neither the Response or the Reply.\nStandard of Review\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213.\n§ 190.243 Petitions for reconsideration.\n(a) A respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of an order directing amendment of plans or procedures\nissued under § 190.206, a final order issued under § 190.213, or a safety\norder issued under § 190.239. The written petition must be received no later\nthan 20 days after receipt of the order by the respondent. A copy of the\npetition must be provided to the Chief Counsel of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, East Building, 2nd Floor, Mail\nStop E26-105, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by\nemail to phmsachiefcounsel@dot.gov. Petitions received after that time will\nnot be considered. The petition must contain a brief statement of the\ncomplaint and an explanation as to why the order should be reconsidered.\n(b) If the respondent requests the consideration of additional facts or\narguments, the respondent must submit the reasons why they were not\npresented prior to issuance of the final order.\n(c) The filing of a petition under this section stays the payment of any\ncivil penalty assessed. However, unless the Associate Administrator\notherwise provides, the order, including any required corrective action, is\nnot stayed.\n(d) The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part,\nany petition for reconsideration without further proceedings. If the\nAssociate Administrator reconsiders an order under this section, a final\ndecision on reconsideration may be issued without further proceedings, or,\nin the alternative, additional information, data, and comment may be\nrequested by the Associate Administrator, as deemed appropriate.\n(e) It is the policy of the Associate Administrator to expeditiously issue\nnotice of the action taken on a petition for reconsideration. In cases where\na substantial delay is expected, notice of that fact and the date by which it\nis expected that action will be taken is provided to the respondent upon\nrequest and whenever practicable.\n(f) If the Associate Administrator reconsiders an order under this\nsection, the decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action on\nthat enforcement proceeding.\n(g) Any application for judicial review must be filed no later than 89\ndays after the issuance of the decision in accordance with 49 U.S.C.\n60119(a).\n(h) Judicial review of agency action under 49 U.S.C. 60119(a) will apply the\nstandards of review established in 5 U.S.C. 706.\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2016-1008\nPage 4\nAnalysis\nTransco’s petition does not seek reconsideration of any findings or assessed civil penalties.\nRather, Transco requests a revision of the supporting explanation for the finding associated with\nItem 1, which was withdrawn. Specifically, Transco objects to a paragraph (the “Paragraph”)\nthat discusses an alleged statement from Williams’ employee Shane Frasier (the “Statement”)\nthat was contained in the Violation Report. Transco argues that the Paragraph is purely dicta and\nhas no bearing on the ultimate determination of whether a violation of Item 1 occurred. Transco\nalso argues that the Statement appears to have been completely disregarded by the Associate\nAdministrator in reaching his decision. Moreover, Transco asserts that the Statement is\ninflammatory because it erroneously suggests that Williams’ management knowingly hindered\nthe release of information during the emergency response effort. For those reasons, the Petition\nrequests that the Paragraph be stricken from the Final Order.\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, a final order from the Associate Administrator must include a\nstatement of findings and determinations on all material issues, including a determination as to\nwhether each alleged violation has been proved.6 To be legally sufficient, the final order must be\nwell-reasoned and explain its finding with more than a “conclusory statement.”7 As the Supreme\nCourt stated in Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association v. State Farm Auto Mutual Insurance\nCo., “the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its\naction including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”8\nThe very first sentence of the Paragraph at issue states, “[t]his issue can only be decided by\nweighing the probity of the witness testimony, both at the time of the accident and at the\nhearing.” (emphasis added). The Paragraph then describes the competing claims as to the timing\nand sequence of events that occurred after the incident on October 8, 2015. The Paragraph\npresents the evidence provided by both parties (emphasis added), including alleged statements\nattributed to Williams’ employees immediately following the accident and the written affidavits\nthat were submitted at the Hearing. The Paragraph also notes that the OPS investigator who\nauthored the Violation Report, Molly Atkins, was not available to testify at the hearing. The\nFinal Order weighs the evidence before concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support a\nfinding that Transco failed to give immediate notice of the number of injuries and fatalities. The\nParagraph that the Petitioner seeks to strike contains the key facts that support the decision to\nwithdraw Item 1.\nThe Petition also argues that the Paragraph contains an inflammatory statement that erroneously\nsuggests that Williams’ management knowingly hindered the release of information. However,\nthe Paragraph discusses the allegations made against Transco, the evidence OPS collected during\nits investigation, and the evidence submitted by both parties in preparation for and during the\nhearing. Importantly, the Final Order specifically notes that Transco denied the allegation that it\n6 49 C.F.R § 190.213(a)(1).\n7 Allied –Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146,152 (D.C. Cir. 1993).\n8 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 US 156, 168 (1962)).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2016-1008\nPage 5\nwithheld any information about the incident and that Transco stated it submitted all information\nknown to it at the time.9 As explained above, the Paragraph describes the evidence that provides\na rational connection between the facts found and the decision to withdraw Item 1. It is well\nwithin the authority of the decision maker to explain how it reached its decision to withdraw the\nviolation and associated penalty. For these reasons, the Petition is denied.\nConclusion\nBased on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby deny the\nPetition and affirm the Final Order without modification, for the reasons set forth above.\nPayment of the $1,400,000 civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is now due and must be\nmade within 20 days of service of this Decision. The payment instructions were set forth in\ndetail in the Final Order. Failure to pay the $1,400,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of\ninterest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49\nC.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per\nannum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 da","truncated":true,"body_characters":55765}