{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420172005","title":"WILLIAMS ENERGY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-10-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.479(a), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.613, 192.805(b), 192.807.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420172005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420172005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420172005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420172005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WILLIAMS ENERGY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.479(a),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.613,  192.805(b),  192.807. The case was opened on 2017-10-16 and is reported as closed as of 2018-12-20. Proposed civil penalty: $56,900. Assessed civil penalty: $56,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420172005_Final Order_12202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420172005/420172005_Final%20Order_12202018.pdf\n\n420172005_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420172005/420172005_Final%20Order_12202018_text.pdf\n\n420172005_NOPV PCP PCO_10162017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420172005/420172005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10162017.pdf\n\n420172005_NOPV PCP PCO_10162017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420172005/420172005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10162017_text.pdf\n\n420172005_Operator Response to Notice_10312017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420172005/420172005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10312017.pdf\n\n420172005_Final Order_12202018_text.pdf\n\nDecember 20, 2018\nMr. Alan S. Armstrong\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nThe Williams Companies, Inc.\nOne Williams Center\nTulsa, OK 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2017-2005\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nWilliams Energy, LLC. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $56,900.\nThis is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated\nNovember 16, 2017. The order further finds that Williams Energy, LLC, has completed the\nactions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this\nenforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing as 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. Mark Cluff, Vice President of Operations and Operational Disciplines, Williams\nEnergy, LLC, 525 Central Park Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 733105\nMr. Larry Legendre, Manager Pipeline Safety, Williams Atlantic Gulf, 2800 Post Oak\nBlvd., Houston, TX 77056\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 )\nWilliams Energy, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2017-2005\na subsidiary of The Williams Companies, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom September 2015 through February 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Williams\nEnergy, LLC (Williams or Respondent) in Houston, Texas. Williams is a subsidiary of The\nWilliams Companies, Inc.,1 whose Atlantic-Gulf Operating Area includes a natural gas pipeline\nextending approximately 1,800 miles between South Texas and New York City, a 745-mile\nnatural gas pipeline across the Gulf of Mexico to Florida, and several other gathering and\nprocessing facilities. Williams also operates approximately 480 miles of offshore gas gathering\nin the Gulf of Mexico. 2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 16, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nWilliams had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $56,900 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required\nno further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nWilliams responded to the Notice by letter dated October 31, 2017 (Response). The company\n1\nhttp://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?ref=12075170&type=HTML&symbol=WMB&companyName=Wi\nlliams+Companies+Inc.+%28The%29&formType=10-\nK&formDescription=Annual+report+with+a+comprehensive+overview+of+the+company&dateFiled=2018-02-22\n2 https://co.williams.com/operations-2/atlantic-gulf-operating-area/ (last visited Sept. 10, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-2005\nPage 2\ndid not contest the allegations of violation or the proposed compliance order and provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. The company also indicated it would\npay the proposed civil penalty, which it did by wire transfer dated November 16, 2017.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. Williams'\npayment of the civil penalty authorizes entry of this final order without further proceedings.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Williams did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(a), which states:\n§ 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of\nits facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning changes in\nclass location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in\ncathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and\nmaintenance conditions.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(a) by failing to have\nprocedures for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate action\nconcerning changes in class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in\ncathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Williams did not have procedures for continuing\nsurveillance and did not have any records demonstrating that continuing surveillance had been\nperformed for calendar years 2012 through 2015.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained that it had prepared new\nprocedures and submitted the procedures to the Director. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(a) by failing to have\nprocedures for continuing surveillance of its facilities.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8), which states:\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 . . . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations . . . .\n(1) …\n(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-2005\nPage 3\ndetermine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies\nare found.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to prepare and\nfollow written procedures for periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies were found. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Williams did not have procedures for performing a periodic effectiveness\nreview of work done by personnel and did not have any records documenting that effectiveness\nreviews had been conducted.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained that it had implemented\nnew procedures and submitted them to the Director. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to prepare and\nfollow written procedures for periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph\n(c) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat\neach pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Williams failed to clean and coat the 8- and 20-inch gas risers on platform GI-115-A\nbetween 2014 and 2016.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained that the segments had now\nbeen cleaned and recoated and submitted confirming documentation to the Director.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807, which states:\n§ 192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to\nperform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-2005\nPage 4\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of\nprior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered\ntasks shall be retained for a period of five years.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807 by failing to maintain\nqualification records for individuals performing covered tasks. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Williams failed to have documentation showing that certain individuals were qualified when\nthey performed an atmospheric-corrosion inspection, inspected a leak, and closed a valve.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807 by failing to maintain\nqualification records for individuals performing covered tasks.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to . . .\n(a) …\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to follow its own\nwritten qualification program to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Williams failed to ensure that an\nemployee was qualified to perform the covered task of performing pipe-to-soil cathodic\nprotection surveys on May 16, 2013, and August 8, 2014.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to follow its\nwritten qualification program to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks were qualified.\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.3 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n3 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. 4-2017-2005\nPage 5\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $56,900 for two of the violations cited above.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.807, for failing to maintain qualification records for individuals performing covered tasks.\nRespondent did not contest the penalty and submitted payment on November 16, 2017.\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.805(b), for failing to follow its own written qualification program to ensure through\nevaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Respondent did not contest\nthe penalty and submitted payment on November 16, 2017.\nAccordingly, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $56,900, which amount has already\nbeen paid.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.613(a), 192.605(b)(8), and 192.479(a), respectively. Under 49\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601.\nRespondent submitted documentation in response to the proposed compliance order, including:\nprocedures for continuing surveillance under 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(a) (Item 1); procedures for\nperiodically reviewing the work done by personnel under § 192.605(b)(8) (Item 2); and\ndocumentation of cleaned and coated segments exposed to the atmosphere under § 192.479(a)\n(Item 4). The Director has reviewed the submissions and finds them satisfactory. Therefore, it is\nnot necessary to include the terms of the proposed compliance order in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review and\nupdate its manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-2005\nPage 6\nmaintenance activities at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\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\n420172005_NOPV PCP PCO_10162017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 16, 2017\nMark Cluss\nVP of Operations and Operational Disciplines\nWilliams Energy, LLC\n525 Central Park Drive\nOklahoma City, OK 73105\nCPF 4-2017-2005\nDear Mr. Cluss:\nOn multiple dates between the months of September 2015 and February 2016, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Williams Energy\nDiscovery – Offshore Gas (Williams) pipeline system in Houston, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolations are:\n\n\n\n1. § 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to\ndetermine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location,\nfailures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection\nrequirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no\nimmediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or\nphase out the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or\nphased out, reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with\n§ 192.619 (a) and (b).\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector learned that Williams does not have a required\nprocedure for continuing surveillance.\nAlso, Williams failed to provide records demonstrating that they performed continuing\nsurveillance of pipeline facilities for the calendar year 2012 through 2015 as required by § 192.613.\n2. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety\nduring maintenance and operations.\n(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are found.\nAt the time of the inspection, the PHMSA inspector learned that Williams does not have associated\nprocedures addressing a periodic effectiveness review for work done by their personnel as required\nby § 192.605(b)(8). This become evident when Williams was unable to provide records validating\nthat effectiveness reviews had been conducted periodically.\nWilliams must prepare procedures that address the requirements of § 192.605(b)(8).\n3. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n2\n\n\n\nWilliams conducted annual reviews of the written procedures in the O&M manual, but the reviews\nwere vague and lacked details about the procedures reviewed and the updates made.\nFor the 2011 through 2014 records, Williams provided a statement indicating the System Integrity\nPlan (SIP) has been in review as an ongoing project to improve the quality and merge the content\nwith legacy gas pipes policies and procedures. The legacy gas pipes procedures are known as the\nWilliams Integrated Management System (WIMS) project.\nWhile reviewing the aforementioned records, the PHMSA inspector noted the documentation\nprovided lacked details of which procedures were reviewed and what updates were made during\neach calendar year. If there were any updates, the records failed to establish an interval in which\nthe review recommendation will be inserted into the manual.\n4. §192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control; General.\na) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\nWilliam personnel did not clean or coat the following pipeline segment exposures, the 8” gas riser\nfrom EW-921-A and the 20” gas riser to ST-256-30 SSTI both located on platform GI-115-A,\nbetween the 2014 atmosphere corrosion inspection and this inspection. According to the\ndocumentation provided, the condition worsened in the calendar year 2015.\nOn 5/1/2013, a Williams’ contract employee inspected the 8” gas riser from EW-921-A for the\natmospheric corrosion inspection at platform GI-115-A. He documented that \"Riser has splashtron\ncoating to +16', riser has tear at +1' and it has light surface corrosion at the top of the splashtron\ncoating at +16'\". On the 8/6/2014 atmospheric corrosion inspection, it was reported as passive\npitting throughout and the riser guard has a through wall corrosion hole. On the 10/6/2015\natmospheric corrosion inspection, Williams reported metal loss due to passive pitting throughout\nand guard has a through-wall corrosion hole. When Williams was questioned about the repair\nstatus of the riser from the previous inspections, the operator stated that a work order to perform\nthe work was issued on 1/26/2015. The work order has not been started/completed at the time of\nthis inspection. Further, Williams did not provide an RSTRENG analysis and the operating\npressure was not reduced in the pipeline.\nOn 5/1/2013, a Williams’ contract employee inspected the 20” gas riser to ST-256-30 SSTI for the\natmospheric corrosion inspection at Platform GI115-A. He documented that “Riser has moderate\nsurface corrosion at the top of the splashtron coating at +24’, on the flange fasteners, and on the\nvalve assembly and moderate corrosion on the flange fasteners at +17’”. On the 8/6/2014\natmospheric corrosion inspection, it was reported that riser has light crevice corrosion at +24’ and\nit was coated. During the 10/6/2015 inspection, Williams documented that the riser has moderate\nsurface corrosion throughout the processing equipment at the cellar deck and riser guard with an\nimpact damage and active pitting. When Williams was questioned about the repair status, the\noperator stated that a work order to perform the work was issued on 1/26/2015. The work order\n3\n\n\n\nhas not been started/completed at the time of this inspection. Further, Williams did not provide\nRSTRENG analysis and the operating pressure was not reduced in the pipeline.\n5. §192.807 Recordkeeping. .\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be maintained while\nthe individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior qualification and\nrecords of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period\nof five years.\nWilliams failed to follow their DOT-Operator Qualification Plan and maintain records as required\nby §192.807 on the following three occasions:\nThe Williams Operator Qualification (OQ) Plan – Rev. 9, Section 8: Contractor states, “Prior to\ncommencing work, verify through the ISNetworld (ISN) website that each contractor and\nsubcontractor employee is qualified or will be overseen by a qualified contract employee, to\nperform those Covered Tasks (Appendix B of the Williams' Operator Qualification Program)\nassigned to them in accordance with the process described by the Project Manager Responsibilities\nfor OQ Compliance Flowchart. Retain documentation.”\nOn 5/1/2013, a Williams contract employee inspected the 8” gas riser from EW-921-A and 20”\ngas riser to ST-256-30 SSTI for the atmospheric corrosion inspection at platform GI-115-A. When\nthe PHMSA inspector requested the qualification records of this employee to perform visual\natmospheric inspection (OQCT 409), Williams failed to provide documentation indicating the\nemployee was qualified on 5/1/2013 through ISNetworld.\nWilliams reported an incident on 12/3/2014 under NRC # 1102545. While reviewing the\ncondensed activity report related to this incident, the PHMSA inspector noted diver # 32 inspected\na leak and closed a valve to make safe. When the PHMSA inspector requested the qualification\nrecords of diver # 32, Williams failed to provide his qualification through ISNetworld website.\nWilliams updated its DOT-Operator Qualification Plan (Rev. 00) on July 6, 2015. The Section\n8.2: Contractor OQ Administration states “The Company has contracted Veriforce, LLC, to\nadminister its Contractor process and recordkeeping requirements. All aspects of this\n4\n\n\n\nadministration will be made available to local Management through the Veriforce website\n(www.Veriforce.com).”\nOn 10/6/2015, a Williams contract employee inspected the 8” gas riser from EW-921-A and 20”\ngas riser to ST-256-30 SSTI for the atmospheric corrosion inspection at platform GI-115-A. When\nthe PHMSA inspector requested the qualification records of this employee to perform visual\natmospheric inspection (OQCT 409), Williams failed to provide documentation indicating the\nemployee was qualified on 10/6/2015 through Veriforce.\n6. §192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall\ninclude provisions to:\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified;\nWilliams failed to ensure through evaluation that an employee was qualified to perform covered\ntasks on the following two occasions.\nWhile reviewing records associated with the 2013 and 2014 Annual Cathodic Protection Survey\non Segment 10845 and 10823 respectively, the PHMSA inspector noted that Williams failed to\nensure through evaluation that an employee was qualified to perform a covered task. Specifically,\ntask CT401: Perform pipe to soil surveys including close interval surveys. A Williams’s employee\nperformed the task on 5/16/2013 and 8/8/2014. PHMSA reviewed the qualification records for\nthis individual, and the records indicated his qualification was not current for this covered\ntask. Williams implemented a new Operator Qualification Plan; Rev. 0, and the individual was\nfound qualified on covered task CT407: Perform Cathodic Protection Survey on 4/6/2015. Covered\nTask CT407 in the new plan is equivalent to CT401 in the old plan.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related\nseries of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocumentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be\npreliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $56,900 as follows:\n5\n\n\n\nItem number\nPENALTY\n5\n6\n$24,800\n$32,100\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in\nthis case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item. Failure to do so may\nresult in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2 and 4 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Williams\nEnergy, LLC Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a\nwaiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to\nyou and to issue a Final Order.\n6\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2017-2005 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nFrank Causey\nActing Director, SW Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n7\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Williams Energy, LLC (Williams) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Williams\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Williams failure to\nhave procedures addressing continuing surveillance of pipeline facilities Williams\nmust develop procedures to comply with §192.613 as required by §192.605(e).\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Williams failure to have\nprocedures addressing the periodic review of work done by the operator’s personnel\nto determine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance, Williams must develop procedures required by\n§192.605 (b)(8).\nIn regards to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to Williams failure to clean\nor coat the pipeline segment exposures located at platform GI-115-A, Williams\nmust perform RSTRENG analysis to calculate the remaining strength of corroded\npipe. If the analysis indicates safety issue, Williams must mitigate it by either\nreducing the operating pressure or replaced the pipe.\nWilliams must complete Item Number 1 and 2 within 30 days and Item Number 3\nin 90 days.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Williams maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Jon Manning, Acting Director, SW Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n8","truncated":false,"body_characters":31756}