{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42022039NOPV","title":"WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES - GULF COAST COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-06-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(g)(1)(xxi), 195.579(b)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022039nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022039nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022039nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42022039NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES - GULF COAST COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(g)(1)(xxi),  195.579(b)(3). The case was opened on 2022-06-17 and is reported as closed as of 2024-03-22. Proposed civil penalty: $116,600. Assessed civil penalty: $116,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42022039NOPV_Closure Letter_03222024_(21-203269).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_Closure%20Letter_03222024_(21-203269).pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_Closure Letter_03222024_(21-203269)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_Closure%20Letter_03222024_(21-203269)_text.pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_Final Order_12142023_(21-203269).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_Final%20Order_12142023_(21-203269).pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_Final Order_12142023_(21-203269)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_Final%20Order_12142023_(21-203269)_text.pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_Operator Response and Request_07152022_(21-203269).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request_07152022_(21-203269).pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of RfH_01122023_(21-203269).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20RfH_01122023_(21-203269).pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_PCP PCO_06172022_(21-203269).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06172022_(21-203269).pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_PCP PCO_06172022_(21-203269)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06172022_(21-203269)_text.pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_11042022_(21-203269).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_11042022_(21-203269).pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_11042022_(21-203269)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022039NOPV/42022039NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_11042022_(21-203269)_text.pdf\n\n42022039NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_11042022_(21-203269)_text.pdf\n\nNovember 4, 2022\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: john.bell@williams.com and bryan.lethcoe@dot.gov\nMr. John Bell\nManager of Pipeline Safety – Transmission and Gulf of Mexico\nWilliams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, LP\nOne Williams Center\nP.O. Box 645\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74172\nMr. Bryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n8701 South Gessner Road, Suite 630\nHouston, Texas 77074\nRe: Notice of Hearing, Williams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, LP\nCPF No. 4-2022-039-NOPV\nDear Mr. Bell and Mr. Lethcoe:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The hearing will take\nplace on February 1, 2023, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Central Time.\nThe hearing will take place at the PHMSA Southwest Region office, 8701 South Gessner Road,\nSuite 630, Houston, TX 77074. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present\nphoto identification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is\n(713) 272-2859.\nAt least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by January 23, 2023), both parties must submit and\nexchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and\nemail address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not\nsubmitted by this date may be excluded.\n\n\n\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\nSincerely,\nLarry White\nPresiding Official\ncc: Mr. Mark Cluff, Vice President Safety and Operational Discipline, Williams Field\nServices – Gulf Coast Company, LP, mark.cluff@williams.com\nMs. Erin Sullenger, Senior Attorney Environmental, Health & Safety, Williams Field\nServices – Gulf Coast Company, LP, erin.pottersullenger@williams.com\nMr. Ian Curry, Esq., Counsel, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,\nian.curry@dot.gov\n\n42022039NOPV_Final Order_12142023_(21-203269)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 14, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Amy.Shank@williams.com\nAmy Shank\nVice President, Safety & Operational Discipline\nWilliams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, LP\nOne Williams Center, P.O. Box 645\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2022-039-NOPV\nDear Ms. Shank:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $116,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nWilliams to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth\nin the Final 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 e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt 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: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. John Bell, Manager of Pipeline Safety – Transmission & Gulf of Mexico,\nWilliams, John.Bell@williams.com\nMr. Clint Pernack, Director of Pipeline Safety & Asset Integrity, Williams,\nClint.Pernack@williams.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2022-039-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May 18, 2021, through September 2, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the\nfacilities and records of Williams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, LP (Williams or\nRespondent) in Bay City, Texas and Mobile, Alabama. The facility that was the subject of the\ninspection is a 401-mile crude oil offshore gathering pipeline. The parent company, The\nWilliams Companies, responded on Respondent’s behalf.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 17, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207,\nthe Notice proposed finding that Williams had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(g) and\n195.579(b) and proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $116,600 for the alleged violations.\nThe Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolations.\nWilliams responded to the Notice by letter dated July 15, 2022 (Response). Williams\ncontested Item 1 and did not contest Item 2 of the two allegations of violation and requested a\nconsultation and settlement meeting with PHMSA regarding: the contested Item, the\nobligations in the Proposed Compliance Order (PCO), and the proposed civil penalty for both\nItems 1 and 2. Williams’ Response also reserved the right to request a hearing regarding the\nitems in the NOPV should Williams not be satisfied with the outcome of the consultation and\nsettlement meeting. By letter dated January 12, 2023 (Second Response), Respondent\nwithdrew its request for a hearing and its opposition to Item 1 and thereby authorized the entry\nof this Final Order without further notice.\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Second Response, Williams did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the\nintegrity of each pipeline segment (see paragraph (j) of this section), an\noperator must analyze all available information about the integrity of its\nentire pipeline and the consequences of a possible failure along the\npipeline. Operators must continue to comply with the data integration\nelements specified in § 195.452(g) that were in effect on October 1, 2018,\nuntil October 1, 2022. Operators must begin to integrate all the data\nelements specified in this section starting October 1, 2020, with all\nattributes integrated by October 1, 2022. This analysis must:\n(1) Integrate information and attributes about the pipeline that\ninclude, but are not limited to:\n(i) …\n(xxi) Other pertinent information derived from operations and\nmaintenance activities and any additional tests, inspections, surveys,\npatrols, or monitoring required under this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g)(1)(xxi) by failing to\nanalyze all available information when conducting its information analysis when it did not\ninclude proper information derived from operations and maintenance activities including tests,\ninspections, surveys, patrols, or monitoring requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nWilliams did not conduct internal corrosion coupon inspections in calendar years 2017, 2018,\n2019, 2020, and 2021, and Williams used invalid internal corrosion rates in its information\nanalysis for those years. The Notice further alleged that these inaccurate inputs resulted in\nflawed outputs from its Pipeline Risk Model.\nRespondent withdrew its opposition to this allegation of violation in its Second Response.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.452(g)(1)(xxi) by using invalid corrosion rates in its information analysis, such\nthat it failed to effectively integrate information and attributes about the pipeline including\ntests, inspections, surveys, patrols, or monitoring.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) …\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate\ninternal corrosion, you must—\n(1) …\n\n\n\n(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least\ntwice each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7 ½\nmonths.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b)(3) by failing to examine\ncoupons at least twice each calendar year for seven inspection intervals from 2017 through\n2021. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Williams’ failure to monitor coupons prevented\nWilliams from properly integrating information about the pipeline in order to effectively\nmonitor of the use or effectiveness of corrosion inhibitors for the purpose of mitigating\ninternal corrosion.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b)(3) by failing to\nexamine coupons as required to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion inhibitors.\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\nexceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000\nfor any related series of violations.1\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the\nviolation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s\nculpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on\nits ability to continue doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to\ndiscovery by PHMSA. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the\nviolation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as\njustice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $116,600 for the violations\ncited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $55,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.452(g)(1)(xxi), for failing to effectively integrate information and attributes\nabout the pipeline including tests, inspections, surveys, patrols, or monitoring by using invalid\ncorrosion rates in its information analysis.\nIn its Second Response, Williams requests that PHMSA reduce the civil penalties associated\nwith Item 1, arguing that the proposed civil penalty did not accurately reflect the statutory and\nregulatory penalty assessment criteria required by 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b) and 49 C.F.R. §\n190.225. Williams specifically argues that PHMSA erred in considering the following criteria\n1 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\nthat are relevant to the calculation of the proposed civil penalty in the Notice.\nFirst, Respondent argues it should have received a credit based on the “good faith” factor.\nWilliams contends that despite the omission of corrosion coupon data, its risk model’s use of\nin-line inspection (ILI) data demonstrates a good faith effort to comply with both the\nregulation and Williams’ procedures. Williams further argues that that ILI data provides\nquantitative data, whereas corrosion coupon data is more qualitative. Williams argues that\nPHMSA should have awarded it with a “-10” for this factor. I find a credit based on Williams’\nactions in this case is not warranted. Section 195.452(g)(1)(xxi) specifically requires the\nconsideration of multiple factors and data points in each information analysis, including\n“pertinent data derived from operations and maintenance activities and any additional tests,\ninspections, surveys, patrols, or monitoring required under this part.” Williams was correct to\nconsider ILI data, but it was also required to collect and utilize corrosion coupon data, which is\npertinent data. Given that the plain language of the regulation conveys the importance of\nmultiple data sources, Williams’ reliance on ILI data to exclusion of the other data does not\ndemonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the letter of the regulation.\nNext, Williams argues that in calculating the proposed civil penalty pursuant to the “other\nmatters as justice may require” factor, PHMSA failed to provide Williams with credit to reflect\nthat its failure to collect and input corrosion coupon data into its information analysis did not\nimpact the safety of the pipeline. Williams argues that its use of the ILI data in its risk\nassessment still resulted in Williams identifying the segment as susceptible to internal\ncorrosion, which resulted in Williams taking various actions to manage the threat of internal\ncorrosion. I find a credit based on the “other matters as justice may require” is not warranted\nhere because Williams’ procedures did not exceed the regulatory requirements, so William’s\nnoncompliance was with the regulations and not a procedure that exceeded the standards set in\nthe regulations.\nLastly, with regard to the “gravity” factor, Williams disagrees with PHMSA’s enhancement\nthat was based on the violation occurring in a high consequence area (HCA). Williams does\nnot dispute that the violation occurred in an HCA but argues that the gravity factor should be\nreduced because the violation only minimally affected pipeline safety. I disagree. The fact\nthat the violation occurred in an HCA is determinative, so no reduction is warranted.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $55,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g)(1)(xxi).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $61,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.479(b)(3), for failing to examine internal corrosion coupons at least twice each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, in accordance with its procedure\nand § 195.579(b)(3). Williams provides an accounting of the actions it has taken since the\ndiscovery of the missed inspections and its disclosure to PHMSA. In light of the actions it\ndescribes, Williams requests that PHMSA reduce the proposed civil penalty for Item 2 in\naccordance with the following criteria that are relevant to the calculation of the proposed civil\npenalty in the Notice.\nFirst, with regard to the “circumstances” factor and the 25 percent mitigation that PHMSA\n\n\n\nawarded in the calculation of the proposed civil penalty based on Williams’ self-report,\nWilliams points out that in a separate PHMSA enforcement case involving a natural gas\npipeline, PHMSA applied a 50 percent mitigation factor following Williams’ disclosure of its\nfailure to collect corrosion coupon data. Williams asserts that PHMSA should have applied\nthe 50 percent mitigation in this case, given the similarity in the violations. However, the\ncircumstances of the present case are distinguishable from the case involving the natural gas\npipeline. The natural gas pipeline did not pose an environmental risk to the offshore area, and,\nunlike the current case, that pipeline was not located in an HCA. Additionally, in this case,\nWilliams’ failure to collect coupon data resulted in the use of a flawed risk model. In\ndetermining mitigation values, PHMSA considers the totality of the circumstances and the risk\nlevel, which is unique in each case. Here, I do not find any error in PHMSA’s provision of a\n25 percent mitigation factor for Williams self-reporting violations that had been occurred over\nthe course of five years.\nNext, with regard to the “culpability” factor, Williams argues that PHMSA did not account for\nthe fact that Williams identified the violation to PHMSA and that “it was taking and had\ncompleted proactive steps to address the deficiencies prior to issuance of the NOPV.”\nHowever, PHMSA does not provide credit for corrective actions taken after PHMSA learned\nof the violation. For this reason, a reduction based on the “culpability” factor is not warranted.\nLastly, Williams argues that PHMSA erroneously enhanced the civil penalty by a factor of\n“20.40” based on the “gravity” component of the civil penalty calculation. To support its\nargument, Williams again argues that the missed inspections did not affect the risk to pipeline\nsafety because Williams had identified the pipeline as affected by internal corrosion due to the\nuse of ILI data. However, the “20.40” here represents the additional points for multiple\ninstances of violation, as reflected in the Violation Report. Accordingly, no reduction based\non the “gravity” factor is warranted.\nFor the above reasons, Williams has failed to demonstrate that PHMSA’s calculation of the\ncivil penalty proposed in the Notice was incorrect or inappropriate. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty\nof $61,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.479(b)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $116,600.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire\ntransfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the\nU.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning\nwire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal\nAviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd,\nOklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is\n(405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\n\n\n\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(g)(1)(xxi) and 195.579(b)(3). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.452(g) (Item 1), Respondent did not contest the PCO.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.479(b) (Item 2), Respondent argues the compliance terms\nshould be modified. Williams states that during discussions with PHMSA representatives,\nPHMSA agreed that the root cause analysis performed by DNV prior to the issuance of the\nNotice satisfies the PCO requirement that Williams submit the findings from a root cause\nfailure analysis performed by an independent technical expert regarding the company’s failure\nto complete the inspections. PHMSA agrees that the submitted root cause analysis fulfills the\nrequirement. Thus, the first requirement of PCO Item 2 has been completed.\nThe PCO also stated that Williams must conduct the required internal corrosion inspections\nwithin 30 days of receipt of the Final Order. Williams argues that the offshore locations of\nthese coupons requires arranging for the coupons’ pull and transportation. Thus, Williams\nrequests that PHMSA permit it to comply with the compliance order by pulling coupons\nduring their next scheduled inspection in 2023. The next regularly scheduled coupon pulls\nwere set to occur in March, April, and May of 2023. Given that these dates have passed, the\ncoupon inspections should have already occurred. If Williams needs additional time to\ncomplete the compliance order after issuance of the Final Order, the Director may extend the\ndeadline by written request for good cause.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(g) (Item 1), Respondent must\nconduct a review of internal corrosion coupon inputs and update with the\ninformation analysis with the current input. If the current input is not available,\nWilliams must default to the most conservative value. Williams must submit an\nupdated information analysis, reflecting this review, to PHMSA for review within\n90 days of receipt of the Final Order\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.479(b) (Item 2), Respondent must\n\n\n\nconduct the required internal corrosion inspections within 90 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\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.\nPHMSA requests 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\nwith replacements, 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 (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation\nfor each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief\nin a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New\nJersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the\nOffice of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received\nno later than 20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted\nmust contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty\nassessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the\nAssociate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 14, 2023\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n42022039NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of RfH_01122023_(21-203269).pdf\n\nOne Williams Center\nP.O. Box 645\nTulsa, OK 74172\nJanuary 12, 2023\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region\n8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston, TX 77074\nRe: Williams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, L.P., Notice of Probable Violation, CPF\nNo.4-2022-039-NOPV Appeal\nMr. Lethcoe,\nOn behalf of Williams Field Services – Gulf Coast Company, L.P. (Williams or the\nCompany), this letter is to withdraw the Company’s Request for Hearing previously submitted to\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or the Agency) on July 15,\n2022 in CPF No. 4-2022-039. Williams appreciates PHMSA’s willingness to engage on these\nissues and shares the Agency’s commitment to pipeline safety. In the spirit of cooperation and\nwithout admission, the Company is electing not to contest the two (2) alleged violations issued\nin the Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) associated with the above-referenced matter. As\ndetailed below, the Company submits supplemental information in support of a request for\nreduction in the proposed civil penalty pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(2) and a modification\nof the associated Proposed Compliance Order (PCO) requirements associated\nThe NOPV was issued on June 17,2022. The NOPV asserted two (2) alleged violations\nof the federal pipeline safety regulations: a violation of § 195.452 related to integrity\nmanagement in high consequence areas (HCAs) (Item 1) and a violation of § 192.579 related to\ninternal corrosion (Item 2). In conjunction with the proposed allegations, PHMSA proposed a\ntotal civil penalty of $116,660 and two (2) associated proposed compliance order (PCO) items.\nThe allegations arise out of a voluntarily self-disclosure made by the Company on May\n18, 2021 and supplemented that self-disclosure on August 11, 2021 with additional information.\nUpon discovering the corrosion coupon inspection deficiencies, the Company voluntarily\ninitiated a root cause analysis to identify the cause(s) of the deficiencies and ways to improve its\nprocedures and processes. Williams shared the results of this root cause analysis (RCA) with\nPHMSA on October 29, 2021 and met with PHMSA representatives from the Southwest Region\nto discuss the findings. After discussing the RCA’s findings and in coordination with PHMSA\nrepresentatives, Williams engaged a third-party consultant, DNV GL USA, Inc., to conduct a\nsecond root cause analysis and to share those results with PHMSA. The third-party root cause\nanalysis was shared with PHMSA on May 11, 2022. Notably, Williams’ and DNV’s root cause\nanalyses arrived at very similar conclusions and made similar recommendations for corrective\n\n\n\naction. Williams was in the process of implementing process and procedural improvements\nwhen PHMSA issued the NOPV on June 17, 2022.\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(4), Williams responded to the NOPV on July 15, 2022\nand contested NOPV Item 1 and the associated proposed civil penalty and PCO requirement.\nWilliams asserted that the allegation was based on a misunderstanding of its procedures and that\nthe Company appropriately includes required data within its Pipeline Risk Model and monitors for\nthe threat of internal corrosion across its system. As it relates to NOPV Item 2, Williams elected\nnot to contest the allegation, but requested a modification of the PCO requirement and a reduction\nin the associated civil penalty. To resolve the contested item and requests for modifications, the\nCompany requested an informal settlement meeting with PHMSA. To preserve its rights, the\nCompany also requested a hearing.\nOn August 11, 2022 and August 19, 2022 Williams and PHMSA representatives from the\nSouthwest Region met to discuss the contested item and requests for modification. In the spirit\nof cooperation, Williams is now withdrawing its request for hearing and submits this response to\nprovide additional factual clarifications about the Company’s self-disclosure of the missed internal\ncorrosion coupon inspections and its work to address the underlying issue. Williams respectfully\nrequests that the Agency reduce the civil penalties associated with the alleged violations to more\naccurately reflect the statutory and regulatory penalty assessment criteria required by 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 and modify the proposed compliance order requirements as\nprovided below.\nPHMSA Allegation:\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\na. …\ng. What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the integrity of\neach pipeline segment (see paragraph (j) of this section), an operator must\nanalyze all available information about the integrity of its entire pipeline\nand the consequences of a possible failure along the pipeline. Operators\nmust continue to comply with the data integration elements specified in\n195.452(g) that were in effect on October 1, 2018, until October 1, 2022.\nOperators must begin to integrate all the data elements specified in this\nsection starting October 1, 2020, with all attributes integrated by October 1,\n2022. This analysis must:\ni. Integrate information and attributes about the pipeline that include,\nbut are not limited to:\n1. …\n2. Other pertinent information derived from operations and\nmaintenance activities and any additional tests, inspections,\nsurveys, patrols, or monitoring required under this part.\nWilliams failed to analyze all available information about the integrity of its\npipeline during its information analysis in accordance with § 195.452(g)(1)(xxi).\nSpecifically, Williams used invalid internal corrosion rates in its information\n\n\n\nanalysis because it failed to conduct the required internal corrosion inspections\nor use a conservative internal corrosion rate.\nWilliams transports corrosive hazardous liquid in its Gulf of Mexico offshore gathering\npipelines. It uses internal corrosion coupons to monitor the internal corrosion rates\nwithin those pipelines, and these rates are used as pipeline attributes in the Williams’\nPipeline Risk Model that analyzes all available information about the integrity of the\nentire pipeline. This process is detailed in Williams’ Pipeline Risk Assessment Program,\n5.1 Input Data (Revision 4, Effective Date: 4/1/2021) and Risk Algorithm Document,\n3.20 MAX_COUPON_MPY as well as 7.1.2.2.1.3 Worst Coupon MPY (Revision 1.2).\nIn calendar years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, Williams missed seven required\ninternal corrosion coupon inspections. Due to these missing internal corrosion coupon\ninspections, Williams relied on inaccurate internal corrosion rates for the pipeline\nattributes in its Pipeline Risk Model, and instead should have used a more conservative\nrate. These inaccurate inputs resulted in flawed outputs from its Pipeline Risk Model.\nProposed Compliance Order Requirement: Williams must conduct a review of\ninternal corrosion inputs and update with the current input. If the current input is\nnot available, Williams must default to the most conservative value. Williams must\nsubmit an updated information analysis reflecting this review, to PHMSA for\nreview within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nProposed Civil Penalty: $55,200\nWilliams Appeal:\nThis allegation relates to whether the Company relied on inaccurate internal corrosion rates in\nits Pipeline Risk Model. As indicated in its prior response, Williams believes this allegation is\nbased on a misunderstanding of its procedures and the Company’s application of its risk model.\nFurther, Williams believes its risk model exhibits a good faith effort to comply with 49 C.F.R. §\n195.452, particularly when viewed as a component of a broader, sophisticated internal corrosion\nprogram.\nAt the outset, Williams’ procedures and process allow the Company to use either (1) the actual\ntool results from an in-line inspection (ILI) tool or (2) modeled defects based on coupon\ncorrosion rates in its Pipeline Risk Model. Williams’ current approach when no ILI data is\navailable is to infer the pipeline’s condition based on indirect measurements like coupon\ncorrosion rates and sampling results. In this case, ILI results were available for the relevant\nsegments and that data was used in the Company’s risk model for purposes of identifying and\nassessing whether the pipeline is susceptible to internal corrosion. The Company elects to use\nILI data, if available, because it provides quantitative evidence of the asset’s conditions as\ncompared to coupon corrosion rate information, which only qualitatively predicts the condition of\nthe asset. Using the ILI data as provided by its procedures, the Company’s risk model indicated\nthat the segment is susceptible to the threat of internal corrosion, but it calculated a low risk\nvalue for the threat.\nHaving identified the segment as a segment susceptible to the threat of internal corrosion,\nWilliams utilizes multiple methodologies to actively monitor the threat of internal corrosion and\n\n\n\nthe segment undergoes scheduled risk assessment reevaluations. The Company monitors for\nthe threat of internal corrosion using MFL ILI technology, which was used to assess the\nsegment in 2018 and will also be used on the next scheduled assessment in 2023. After each\nintegrity assessment, Williams completes a Post Assessment form that summarizes the\nassessment findings, risk results and provides support for the reassessment interval. Further, to\nprevent and mitigate the threat of internal corrosion, this segment is included within the\nCompany’s robust internal corrosion program. Subject matter experts coordinate the program\nwith Operations, which includes pigging, corrosion inhibitor injection and monitoring, and\ncontinuous, real-time monitoring of BS&W values. BS&W refers to basic sediment and water\ncontent. To best manage internal corrosion, Williams institutes real-time surveillance of the\ncrude’s BS&W% content, which in large enough volume, could support an internal corrosion\nmechanism. Management of internal corrosion is always in place with injection of a designed\ncorrosion inhibitor specific for the pipelines purpose and crude’s 1% BS&W specification\nregardless of the level of BS&W%. If BS&W content exceeds the pipeline specification of 1%,\nalarms signal Operations and SMEs where enhanced mitigation efforts can be employed,\nincluding increased inhibitor injections or immediate pigging. Through the combination of these\nactivities, the threat of internal corrosion is dramatically reduced, as evidenced by the low\nseverity and risk result calculated from the ILI-called anomalies.\nAs a part of the PCO in Item A, PHMSA is requesting that Williams conduct a review of the\ninternal corrosion coupon inputs and update them with the current input. After updating the\ninputs Williams would then be required to submit an updated information analysis to PHMSA\nwithin 90 days of receipt of the Final Order. Williams is committed to the safe operation of its\npipeline facilities and in compliance with all applicable health, safety, and environmental laws\nand regulations and works to continuously improve its processes and procedures in furtherance\nof this goal. Consistent with its commitment Williams has identified improvements to strengthen\nits risk model to better account for corrosion coupon data as action items for 2023. Fully\nupdating the risk model to be more comprehensive will take some time. Work is underway to\nupdate the risk model that would drive this updated analysis, but Williams needs more than 90\ndays to provide the resulting analysis to PHMSA. Williams anticipates being able to complete\nPHMSA’s request by July 2023. The risk model already captured that this pipeline was\nsusceptible to internal corrosion. Due to the fact that the pipeline was already flagged as\nsusceptible to internal corrosion and is currently subject to corrosion control monitoring and\nmitigative strategies, Williams believes the additional time requested does not jeopardize public\nsafety.\nIn light of the foregoing, Williams requests that PHMSA reduce the civil penalty associated with\nItem 1 to more accurately reflect the statutory and regulatory penalty assessment criteria and the\nCompany’s efforts to monitor and manage the threat of internal corrosion on its system.\nSpecifically, Williams requests that PHMSA reduce the proposed civil penalty based on the\nfollowing factors:\n• Good Faith – PHMSA failed to provide Williams with any credit for the Company’s\ngood faith belief that it was acting in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g)(i)(2) and\nits procedural requirements by using ILI information in its risk assessment rather than\nmodeled data based on coupon corrosion rates. As indicated above, the ILI data\nprovides more quantitative information about the pipeline asset as compared to the\nmore qualitative information provided by the coupon corrosion rate data. Moreover,\n\n\n\nthe Company used its risk model to determine that the segment is susceptible to the\nthreat of internal corrosion and has actively worked to monitor and mitigate that risk\nas required by the federal pipeline safety regulations. In light of the Company’s good\nfaith efforts to comply with this requirement, Williams should be credited with a “-10”\nfor this factor.\n• Other Matters as Justice May Require – PHMSA has also failed to provide Williams\nwith any credit to reflect that the alleged violation did not impact the safety of the\npipeline. As indicated, Williams uses quantitative data gathered from ILI tools to\nassess the risk of internal corrosion on its system. Using that data, the Company\nidentified that the pipeline segment is susceptible to internal corrosion and actively\nmanages that threat. As such, any alleged failure to include coupon corrosion rate\ndata did not impact the system or the Company’s efforts to monitor its system for\ninternal corrosion. Williams should be credited with a “-10” for this factor.\n• Gravity – Relatedly, PHMSA found that the penalty associated with NOPV Item 1\nshould be enhanced by a factor of “17” because the violation occurred in an HCA.\nAlthough the violation does relate to an HCA, the Company requests that PHMSA\nreduce the gravity factor to “1” to reflect that the alleged violation did not imp","truncated":true,"body_characters":53019}