TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF420161008_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_01112019.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF420161008_Operator Post Hearing Brief-Response to Region Recommendation_01302018.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF420161008_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_08252016.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF420161008_Operator_Pre-Hearing_Submission_06132017.pdf#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDecember 20, 2018 Mr. Alan S. Armstrong President and Chief Executive Officer Williams Partners One Williams Center Tulsa, OK 74172 Re: CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Dear Mr. Armstrong: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $1,400,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a consolidated entity of Williams Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. David Nelson, Esq., Partner, Kean Miller, LLP, Il City Plaza 400 Convention Street, Suite 700, Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Ms. Stephanie Timmermeyer, Vice President of Safety and Regulatory Compliance Mr. John Suchar, Williams Partners, LP, 525 Central Park Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73105#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ___________________________________________ In the Matter of ) ) ) Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________________ ) ) CPF No. 4-2016-1008 FINAL ORDER From October 8, 2015 through May 26, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an investigation of an incident involving the pipeline system of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a consolidated entity of Williams Partners, LP (Transco or Respondent) in Gibson, Louisiana. Transco is a wholly owned subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP, and operates a 9,700-mile natural gas pipeline system extending from the Gulf coast to the Eastern seaboard.1 The investigation arose out of an explosion at Respondent’s Station 62 Facility in Gibson, Louisiana. The explosion killed four men and injured two others. As a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 29, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Transco failed to accurately report the incident in a timely manner, in violation of 49 C.F.R. §191.5, committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $1,600,000 for the alleged violations. Williams Partners, LP responded to the Notice by letter dated August 25, 2016 (Response). Williams contested one of the allegations and the associated civil penalty, asked for withdrawal of the compliance order, and requested an informal meeting to discuss a consent order. Respondent also requested an in-person hearing, if a compromise settlement could not be reached. A hearing was subsequently held on July 14, 2017, in Houston, Texas with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by 1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1483096/000148309616000021/wpz_20151231x10k.htm (last accessed on May 3, 2018).#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 2 counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a Post-Hearing Statement for the record, by letter dated January 30, 2018 (Closing). FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191 and Part 192, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, which states: § 191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents. (a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later than one hour after confirmed discovery, each operator must give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in § 191.3. (b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made to the National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424-8802 (in Washington, DC, 202 267-2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil and must include the following information: (1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone numbers. (2) The location of the incident. (3) The time of the incident. (4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any. (5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages. (c) Within 48 hours after the confirmed discovery of an incident, to the extent practicable, an operator must revise or confirm its initial telephonic notice required in paragraph (b) of this section with an estimate of the amount of product released, an estimate of the number of fatalities and injuries, and all other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages. If there are no changes or revisions to the initial report, the operator must confirm the estimates in its initial report. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to give the required notice to the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of the incident. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transco deliberately withheld information regarding the number of known injuries and fatalities in its first report to the NRC. At the hearing, the Respondent denied that it had withheld any information, and stated that it submitted all information known to it at the time.2 Transco also submitted evidence demonstrating that it submitted an amended report to the NRC later the same day that correctly reported the number of injuries and fatalities. The Region countered that assertion by submitting a news article published online at 11:32 a.m. that reported various injuries and fatalities. The 2 The first NRC report was submitted at 12:06 p.m. CST (October 8, 2015). Transco submitted an Amended Report at 3:23 p.m. that same day.#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 3 news article, however, was updated throughout the day, so it is unclear exactly when the information regarding fatalities and injuries was available. This issue can only be decided by weighing the probity of the witness testimony, both at the time of the accident and at the hearing. Mr. Ross Sinclair, Manager of Pipeline Control, Transco, made the first report to the NRC, and stated that there were “no” fatalities and “unknown” injuries. Ms. Molly Atkins, OPS’ investigator, stated in the Violation Report that Mr. Shane Frasier, Engineer II, Williams, stated that “Williams Senior Leadership had not allowed the release of information during the preliminary stage of the incident response about injuries or fatalities.”3 I assessed the testimony of Mr. Ross Sinclair and Mr. Frasier given at the hearing, and I have since read both their written affidavits. Ms. Atkins was not available to testify at the hearing. OPS and the Respondent offer competing claims as to the timing and sequence of events on October 8, 2015. Therefore, the remaining question is whether there is evidence to support OPS’ contention that Transco violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5. Even if I were to accept OPS’s argument that Transco failed to provide the correct information “as soon as practicable” at the time of the first NRC report, Transco submitted an updated report. The second NRC report was submitted at 3:23 p.m., approximately three hours after the first NRC report. The Violation Report does not mention the second NRC report – and it appears that OPS did not consider the existence of this report when deciding to issue this NOPV. In its Post Hearing Brief, Respondent makes much of the fact that its delay in reporting the totality of the circumstances did not obstruct the OPS investigation in any way. I disagree. The purpose of the reporting requirement in 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 is to remove any and all need for OPS to question an operator regarding certain facts. The Violation Report states that OPS, when turned away by Transco’s regulatory compliance personnel, had to reach out to field operations personnel onsite to learn the facts on the ground. The withholding of critical facts, including the number of fatalities, is unacceptable. OPS’ time is better served investigating, as opposed to prodding operators regarding facts that must be reported “as soon as is practicable.” However, there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that Transco failed to give immediate notice of the number of injuries and fatalities. Accordingly, after considering the evidence, I withdraw Item 1. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.751(b), which states: § 192.751 Prevention of accidental ignition. Each operator shall take steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where the presence of gas constitutes a hazard of fire or explosion, including the following: (a) … (b) Gas or electric welding or cutting may not be performed on pipe or on pipe components that contain a combustible mixture of gas and air in the area of work. 3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 29, 2016)(on file with PHMSA), at 5.#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 4 The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.751 by failing to take adequate steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in an area where the presence of gas during welding constituted a combustion hazard. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transco proceeded with welding when a combustible mixture of gas and air was detected within the 42- inch liquids header of the slug catcher. Respondent questions the wording in Item 2, and vehemently denies that Transco failed to stop work after detecting a combustible mixture of gas and air inside the header. The NOPV states that “Transco failed to stop work when gas was detected inside the 42-inch liquids header and allowed welding to start when a combustible mixture of gas and air existed…” I do not read this statement as imputing actual knowledge of a combustible mixture to Transco; the title of the regulation is “Prevention of accidental ignition (emphasis added).” I read the pertinent sentence in the NOPV as properly stating that, prior to the beginning of welding, Transco detected some gas in the header. At some point, when welding started, a combustible mixture of gas and air was present, thus the ensuing explosion and fire. In any case, Transco violated § 192.751 because it failed to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where the presence of gas constitutes a hazard of fire or explosion, including by performing gas or electric welding on a pipe or pipe components that contained a combustible mixture of gas and air in the area of work. Transco did not contest this allegation of violation “if prior knowledge is not required” - and it is not. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.751 by performing gas or electric welding on pipe or on pipe components that contained a combustible mixture of gas and air in the area of work. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in relevant part: § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. (1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its own procedure for hot work, which requires training for all employees supervising or issuing hot work permits. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transco’s contractor personnel were not properly trained, as required by its’ WilSOP Safety Manual Procedure 640.05 – Hot Work.#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 5 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to prepare and follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting operation and maintenance activities. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805, which states in relevant part: § 192.805 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a) Identify covered tasks; (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; (c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified; The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 by failing to follow its written qualification plan. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its Operator Qualification Plan by allowing unqualified personnel to perform covered tasks, failing to identify and verify applicable covered tasks for contractor personnel, failing to ensure the proper qualification of contractor personnel, and failing to have a covered task for vapor barriers. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 by failing to prepare and follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting operation and maintenance activities. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in relevant part: § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 6 (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. (1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its own procedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing its pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s WilSop Operations & Maintenance Manual Procedure 10.22.02- Gas Handling Plans, Section 2.40, required the development of a detailed purge plan for the complex purging of the slug catcher. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its own procedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing its pipeline. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $1,600,000 for the violations cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $200,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, by failing to give the required notice to the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of the incident. At the hearing and in its Post-Hearing Brief, the Respondent argued that the regulation does not require operators to speculate, and that Transco did report all information known to it at the time. As discussed above, I withdraw Item I. Based upon the foregoing, I also withdraw the associated civil penalty of $200,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5. 4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 7 Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $200,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.751, for failing to take adequate steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in an area where the presence of gas during welding constituted a combustion hazard. As I discussed above, Transco’s main point of contention involved whether or not actual knowledge of a combustible mixture was required in order to find a violation of this regulation. Transco neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $200,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.751. Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $400,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, for failing to follow its own procedure for hot work, which requires training for all employees supervising or issuing hot work permits. Transco neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $400,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605. Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $400,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805, for failing to follow its own written qualification plan. Transco neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $400,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805. Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $400,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, for failing to follow its own procedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing its pipeline. Transco neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $400,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1-5 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 191.5, 192.751, 192.605, 192.805 and 192.605, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order: 1. With respect to the violation of § 192.751 (Item 2), Respondent has satisfied the terms of the Compliance Order. 2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 3), Respondent has satisfied the terms of the Compliance Order.#

420161008_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf, page 9CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Page 8 3. With respect to the violation of § 192.805 (Item 4), Respondent has satisfied the terms of the Compliance Order. 4. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 5), Respondent has satisfied the terms of the Compliance Order. With regard to the violation of § 191.5 (Item 1), Respondent argued that the compliance terms should be withdrawn given that, in its estimation, Transco complied with the regulation. As discussed above, I have withdrawn Item 1 and the associated compliance item. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. December 20, 2018 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFSeptember 16, 2019 Mr. Alan S. Armstrong President and Chief Executive Officer Williams Partners, LP One Williams Center Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172 Re: CPF No. 4-2016-1008 Dear Mr. Armstrong: Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP. This Decision does not modify the supporting explanation for the findings associated with Item 1. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Decision by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. John F. Jakuback, Kean Miller, LLP, II City Plaza, 400 Convention Street, Suite 700, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Ms. Stephanie Timmermeyer, Vice President of Safety and Regulatory Compliance, Williams Partners Mr. Mark Cluff, Vice President of Safety and Operational Discipline, Williams Partners CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________________ In the Matter of ) ) ) Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP, ) ) Petitioner. ) ____________________________________________) ) CPF No. 4-2016-1008 DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION In a December 20, 2018 Final Order1, I found that Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, a consolidated entity of Williams Partners, LP (Transco or Petitioner), committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Transco was assessed a civil penalty of $1,400,000, and ordered to take certain corrective actions to address the violations. This case arose out of an explosion at Respondent’s Station 62 Facility in Gibson, Louisiana that killed four men and injured two others. On January 11, 2019, Transco submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition)2 of the Final Order. Even though the Final Order withdrew Item 1 of the Notice of Probable Violation, the Petition requested that a paragraph discussing this allegation be removed from the Final Order. Given that there is no legal or factual basis for this request, I am denying the Petition and affirming the Final Order without modification. Background From October 8, 2015, through May 26, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), investigated the accident. OPS also inspected Transco’s procedures and records. As a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to 1 Transco, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2016-1006 (December 20, 2018). 2 Petition for Reconsideration of Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, dated January 11, 2019 (Petition).#

420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf, page 3CPF 4-2016-1008 Page 2 Transco.3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Transco failed to accurately report the incident in a timely manner, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $1,600,000, and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain corrective actions to address the alleged violations. Williams Partners, LP, on behalf of Transco, responded to the Notice by letter dated August 25, 2016. Williams contested one of the allegations and the associated civil penalty, asked for a withdrawal of the compliance order, and requested an informal meeting to discuss a consent order. Petitioner also requested an in-person hearing, if a compromise settlement could not be reached.4 A hearing was subsequently held on July 14, 2017, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Petitioner provided a post- hearing statement for the record by letter dated August 14, 2017. The Southwest Region also submitted a post-hearing statement for the record by letter dated August 15, 2017. Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of Petitioner’s arguments on December 28, 2017. On December 20, 2018, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order5 in this matter. The Final Order withdrew one alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 (Item 1), but found that Transco committed the remainder of the alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.751(b) (Item 2), 192.605 (Items 3 and 5), and 192.805 (Item 4). The Final Order found that Transco satisfied the proposed compliance order and assessed a civil penalty of $1,400,000. The Final Order also stated that these findings of violation would be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Transco. On January 11, 2019, Transco filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Transco did not seek reconsideration of the findings or the assessed civil penalty. Instead, Transco requested a revision of the supporting explanation for the withdrawal of Item 1. Under § 190.243(c), the filing of a petition stays the payment of the assessed civil penalty. However, unless the Associate Administrator otherwise provides, it does not stay any required corrective action. On January 30, 2019, OPS submitted a Region Response to the Petition (Response), and on February 7, 2019, Transco filed a Motion to Strike Southwest Region’s Response or, in the 3 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), C.P.F. 4-2016- 1008 (July 29, 2016) (available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/420161008/420161008 NOPV%20PCP%20PCO 0 7292016.pdf) 4 Williams Response to Notice, (August 25, 2016) (on file with PHMSA). 5 In the Matter of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2016-1008, December 20, 2018 (Final Order).#

420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf, page 4CPF 4-2016-1008 Page 3 alternative, a Reply to the Response (Reply). This Decision was made without consideration of either the Response or the Reply. Standard of Review Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. § 190.243 Petitions for reconsideration. (a) A respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of an order directing amendment of plans or procedures issued under § 190.206, a final order issued under § 190.213, or a safety order issued under § 190.239. The written petition must be received no later than 20 days after receipt of the order by the respondent. A copy of the petition must be provided to the Chief Counsel of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, East Building, 2nd Floor, Mail Stop E26-105, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by email to phmsachiefcounsel@dot.gov. Petitions received after that time will not be considered. The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an explanation as to why the order should be reconsidered. (b) If the respondent requests the consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons why they were not presented prior to issuance of the final order. (c) The filing of a petition under this section stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, unless the Associate Administrator otherwise provides, the order, including any required corrective action, is not stayed. (d) The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, any petition for reconsideration without further proceedings. If the Associate Administrator reconsiders an order under this section, a final decision on reconsideration may be issued without further proceedings, or, in the alternative, additional information, data, and comment may be requested by the Associate Administrator, as deemed appropriate. (e) It is the policy of the Associate Administrator to expeditiously issue notice of the action taken on a petition for reconsideration. In cases where a substantial delay is expected, notice of that fact and the date by which it is expected that action will be taken is provided to the respondent upon request and whenever practicable. (f) If the Associate Administrator reconsiders an order under this section, the decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action on that enforcement proceeding. (g) Any application for judicial review must be filed no later than 89 days after the issuance of the decision in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60119(a). (h) Judicial review of agency action under 49 U.S.C. 60119(a) will apply the standards of review established in 5 U.S.C. 706.#

420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf, page 5CPF 4-2016-1008 Page 4 Analysis Transco’s petition does not seek reconsideration of any findings or assessed civil penalties. Rather, Transco requests a revision of the supporting explanation for the finding associated with Item 1, which was withdrawn. Specifically, Transco objects to a paragraph (the “Paragraph”) that discusses an alleged statement from Williams’ employee Shane Frasier (the “Statement”) that was contained in the Violation Report. Transco argues that the Paragraph is purely dicta and has no bearing on the ultimate determination of whether a violation of Item 1 occurred. Transco also argues that the Statement appears to have been completely disregarded by the Associate Administrator in reaching his decision. Moreover, Transco asserts that the Statement is inflammatory because it erroneously suggests that Williams’ management knowingly hindered the release of information during the emergency response effort. For those reasons, the Petition requests that the Paragraph be stricken from the Final Order. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, a final order from the Associate Administrator must include a statement of findings and determinations on all material issues, including a determination as to whether each alleged violation has been proved.6 To be legally sufficient, the final order must be well-reasoned and explain its finding with more than a “conclusory statement.”7 As the Supreme Court stated in Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association v. State Farm Auto Mutual Insurance Co., “the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”8 The very first sentence of the Paragraph at issue states, “[t]his issue can only be decided by weighing the probity of the witness testimony, both at the time of the accident and at the hearing.” (emphasis added). The Paragraph then describes the competing claims as to the timing and sequence of events that occurred after the incident on October 8, 2015. The Paragraph presents the evidence provided by both parties (emphasis added), including alleged statements attributed to Williams’ employees immediately following the accident and the written affidavits that were submitted at the Hearing. The Paragraph also notes that the OPS investigator who authored the Violation Report, Molly Atkins, was not available to testify at the hearing. The Final Order weighs the evidence before concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Transco failed to give immediate notice of the number of injuries and fatalities. The Paragraph that the Petitioner seeks to strike contains the key facts that support the decision to withdraw Item 1. The Petition also argues that the Paragraph contains an inflammatory statement that erroneously suggests that Williams’ management knowingly hindered the release of information. However, the Paragraph discusses the allegations made against Transco, the evidence OPS collected during its investigation, and the evidence submitted by both parties in preparation for and during the hearing. Importantly, the Final Order specifically notes that Transco denied the allegation that it 6 49 C.F.R § 190.213(a)(1). 7 Allied –Signal, Inc. v. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146,152 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 8 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 US 156, 168 (1962)).#

420161008_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09162019_text.pdf, page 6CPF 4-2016-1008 Page 5 withheld any information about the incident and that Transco stated it submitted all information known to it at the time.9 As explained above, the Paragraph describes the evidence that provides a rational connection between the facts found and the decision to withdraw Item 1. It is well within the authority of the decision maker to explain how it reached its decision to withdraw the violation and associated penalty. For these reasons, the Petition is denied. Conclusion Based on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby deny the Petition and affirm the Final Order without modification, for the reasons set forth above. Payment of the $1,400,000 civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is now due and must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. The payment instructions were set forth in detail in the Final Order. Failure to pay the $1,400,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court. This Decision constitutes final agency action taken by PHMSA in the enforcement proceeding. The terms and conditions of this Decision are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. September 16, 2019 _____________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 9 Final Order, page 2.#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED July 29, 2016 Ms. Stephanie Timmermeyer Vice President, Safety & Regulatory Compliance Williams Partners, L.P. 525 Central Park Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73105 CPF 4-2016-1008 Dear Ms. Timmermeyer: On October 8, 2015, the Station 62 Facility at Bayou Black, LA operated by Transcontinental Pipeline Company, LLC (Transco), a subsidiary of Williams Partners, L.P., experienced a reportable incident that resulted in a series of explosions, fire, four fatalities, two injuries, evacuations of nearby residences and closure of a state highway. Representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Southwest Region (SWR), responded to the site and initiated an investigation into events surrounding the incident. In conjunction with the incident investigation and pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, PHMSA inspected your procedures, records and pipeline facilities that were involved in the incident from October 9, 2015 through May 26, 2016. As a result of the investigation and inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 21. §191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents. (a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in §191.3. (b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made to the National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424-8802 (in Washington, DC, 202 267-2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil and must include the following information: (1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone numbers. (2) The location of the incident. (3) The time of the incident. (4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any. (5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages. The operator failed to provide all significant facts relevant to the extent of the incident when it gave notice to the National Response Center (NRC). At approximately 11:00 am on October 8, 2015, an explosion and fire occurred at the Transco Compressor Station 62 facility near Gibson, Louisiana. Transco made a telephonic notice to the NRC (Report Number 1130404) at 12:06 p.m., local time, but failed to include all significant facts regarding the reportable event including the number of fatalities and personal injuries. Media reports released as early as 11:32 a.m. included information indicating that at least one fatality and four injuries had occurred, and it was known to the operator that injuries and at least one fatality had occurred at the time the report was filed with the NRC. 2. §192.751 Prevention of accidental ignition. Each operator shall take steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where the presence of gas constitutes a hazard of fire or explosion, including the following: (b) Gas or electric welding or cutting may not be performed on pipe or on pipe components that contain a combustible mixture of gas and air in the area of work. The operator failed to take adequate steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in an area where the presence of gas during welding constituted a combustion hazard. On October 8, 2015, Transco failed to stop work when gas was detected inside the 42-inch liquids header and allowed welding to start when a combustible mixture of gas and air existed within the 42-inch liquids header of the slug catcher caused a series of explosions and fire that resulted in a reportable incident. 2#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 33. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. (1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part. The operator failed to follow its Hot Work procedure, WilSOP Safety Manual Procedure 640.05 – Hot Work, to require training for all employees supervising or issuing Hot Work Permits. On October 8, 2015, Transco allowed contractor personnel to assume the safety and monitoring responsibilities without the prerequisite training, and without oversight by trained operator personnel required by its Hot Work Procedure 640.05. 4. §192.805 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a) Identify covered tasks; (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; (c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified; The operator failed to follow its written Operator Qualification Plan, in four instances including: 1) allowing unqualified personnel to perform Covered Tasks (Atmospheric Monitoring), 2) failing to identify and verify the applicable Covered Tasks for contractor personnel for the Request for Service (RFS) covering the work being performed at the time of the accident; 3) failing to ensure contractor personnel were properly qualified for the covered tasks being performed; and 4) failing to have a Covered Task for the Installation and Use of Vapor Barriers. 3#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 45. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. (1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part. The operator failed to follow its Williams WilSOP Operations & Maintenance Manual Procedure 10.22.02- Gas Handling Plans by not developing a detailed purge plan for the complex purging of the slug catcher with engineering support and District Manager approval to ensure a safe purge, as required by Section 2.40 of the procedure. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $1,600,000 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $ 200,000 2 $ 200,000 3 $ 400,000 4 $ 400,000 5 $ 400,000 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 1 through 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Transco. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. 4#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 5Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-1008 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, R. M. Seeley Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 5#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 6PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Transco, a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Transco with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Transco’s failure to provide the number of fatalities and personal injuries to the NRC, Transco must revise its incident reporting requirements procedures to include instructions that personnel making reports to the NRC must provide the information required by §191.5(b)(4). This item is to be submitted to PHMSA, SW Region within 30 days of the date of the Final Order containing this Compliance Order (Final Order). 2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Transco’s failure to take adequate steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition, Transco must review its operating and maintenance procedures and identify changes to ensure that the requirements of its Preventing Accidental Ignition are clearly aligned with the requirements of its Hot Work Policy, Gas Handling Plans and their associated Training Blocks and that they clearly cross reference the applicable sections of its Operator Qualification Plan and Training Plan. The changes intended to correct the deficiencies in the Prevention of Accidental Ignition processes shall be submitted to PHMSA, SW Region for review and concurrence prior to their implementation. 3. 4. The proposed changes shall be submitted to PHMSA, SW Region within 120 days of the date of the Final Order, and the Final Implementation shall be completed within 180 days of the date of the Final Order, or 30 days after concurrence from PHMSA, SW Region, whichever is later. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Transco’s failure to follow its Hot Work Procedure, Transco shall incorporate the requirements of the Covered Task for Atmospheric Monitoring into its Hot Work Procedures and ensure that the roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated for operator and contractor roles to ensure that only trained and qualified personnel issue and supervise Hot Work. Transco shall develop a training plan to carry out the instruction and implementation of the revised procedures and submit it along with the revised procedures to PHMSA, SW Region prior to carrying out the training for review and concurrence of the revisions and the training content. The revised procedure shall be submitted to PHMSA, SW Region within 60 days of the date of the Final Order, and the training carried out no later than 180 days after the date of the Final Order, or 30 days after concurrence from PHMSA, SW Region, whichever is later. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to Transco’s failure to follow its Operator Qualification Plan (OQ Plan), Transco shall complete the following tasks: a) Create a process to ensure that the identification of covered tasks for project and contract work is reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to the issuance of the 6#

420161008_NOPV PCP PCO_07292016_text.pdf, page 7RFS to verify the covered tasks have been properly identified by personnel having knowledge and experience with the operator’s OQ Plan, and the scope of the project. b) Develop training materials on the proper identification and selection of covered tasks for personnel having responsibility for the development of project documents that include Request for Services. The training shall include information about the operator’s OQ Plan, Covered Tasks, the process developed under Item 3a, and verification of contractor work force personnel’s qualifications prior to the performance of covered tasks. This Item shall be completed no later than 180 days after the date of the Final Order. 5. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to Transco’s failure to follow its Gas Handling Plan procedure, Transco shall complete the following tasks: a) Revise the Gas Handling Plan Procedure 10.22.02 to define what constitutes a “Complex Purge,” clarify when an engineered purge plan is required, and what steps must be taken when performing an “Engineered Purge Plan.” b)Identify and review any pending projects developed prior to the implementation of Item 4a to ensure that all current purge plans have received adequate review and adhere to the process developed in Item 4a. This Item shall be completed no later than 180 days after the date of the Final Order. 6. It is requested (not mandated) that Transco maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 7#