{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120025007","title":"PHILLIPS PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-07-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(a), 195.452(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120025007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120025007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120025007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120025007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(a),  195.452(b). The case was opened on 2002-07-03 and is reported as closed as of 2004-06-21. Proposed civil penalty: $50,000. Assessed civil penalty: $35,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120025007_Final Order_06232003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120025007/120025007_Final%20Order_06232003.pdf\n\n120025007_final order_06232003_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120025007/120025007_final%20order_06232003_text.pdf\n\n120025007_final order_06232003_text.pdf\n\nr+&\nU 5 Department\nof Transportation\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\n400 Seventh St S W\nWashington D C 20590\nMr. David Ysebaert\nPresident\nPhilhps 66 Transportation Company\n390 Adams Building\nBartlesville, OK 74004\nRe: CPF No. 1-2002-5007\nDear Mr Ysebaert:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipehne Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It withdraws one allegation of violation, makes a finding of violation, and\nassesses a civil penalty of $35, 000. The Final Order also requires certain corrective action and\nrevision of your integrity management procedures. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R.\n) 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nGwendolyn M. Hri'1\nPipeline Comphance Registry\nOffice of Pipehne Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nPhillips 66\nTransportation Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 1-2002-5007\nFINAL ORDER\nOn February 13-14, 2002, pursuant to 49 U S. C. ) 60117, representatives of the Eastern and Central\nRegions, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected Philhps 66 Transportation Company's\n(Respondent's) integrity management program at Respondent's facility in Bartlesville, Oklahoma\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated July 3, 2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Comphance\nOrder, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C F. R. ) 190. 207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had committed two violations of 49 C. F R. ( 195. 452(b), proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $50, 000 for one of the alleged violations, and proposed that Respondent\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with\n49 C. FR. ) 190237, that Respondent amend its integrity management program segment\nidentification procedures.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 9, 2002 (Response). Respondent\ncontested certain aspects of the Notice, offered information explaining its position, and described\nthe extent to which it intended to take corrective measures Respondent did not request a hearing,\nconsequently Respondent waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 m the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(b) by failing to\nidentify all of its pipeline segments that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) by\nDecember 31, 2001. Specifically, OPS alleged that Respondent omitted certain highly volatile hquid\n(HVL) pipehne segments located in or near drinking water and ecological unusually sensitive areas\n(USAs) from its segment identification process and failed to provide adequate technical justifications\nfor excludmg such HVL pipeline segments.\n\n\n\nUnder Section 195 452, a hazardous hquid pipeline segment in a HCA is presumed to affect that\nHCA unless the operator demonstrates otherwise by conducting a risk assessment This presumption\napphes to all hazardous hquid pipeline segments, including HVL segments. Under Section 195. 450,\nthe definition of a HCA includes unusually sensitive areas (USAs). Under Section 195. 6, the\ndefinition of a USA includes drinking water and ecological resource areas. Therefore, Respondent\nmust have either identified its HVL pipehnes in or near drinking water and ecological USAs as\n\"could affect\" segments or provided a rehable engineering assessment demonstrating otherwise by\nDecember 31, 2001.\nIn its response, Respondent acknowledged that it did not designate its HVL pipeline segments that\nintersected with drinking water and ecological USAs as \"could affect\" segments prior to the\nDecember 31, 2001 deadhne, Although Respondent asserts that it had reason to beheve that these\nsegments could not affect the relevant HCAs, it did not provide a technical assessment demonstrating\nthat omitting these HVL segments would not diminish protection of the pubhc and the environment\nMoreover, in its response, Respondent notified OPS that after the inspection, it had re-evaluated \"the\ncriteria for HVLs in USAs\" and acknowledged that as a result, it had identified additional pipeline\nsegments that could affect HCAs after the December 31, 2001 deadhne had passed Respondent did\nnot sufficiently rebut the allegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(b) by failing to identify all of its pipeline segments that could affect a high\nconsequence area by December 31, 2001.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 2 of the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C F. R. ) 195. 452(b) by faihng to\ninclude the TOSCO 12-inch crude oil pipehne located in northwest Kern County, Cah fornia In its\nresponse, Respondent submitted information demonstrating that the allegation was based on the\nerroneous use of an outdated map. Based on this information, I am withdrawing this allegation of\nviolation.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. ) 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 225 require that, m determinmg the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpabihty, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's abihty to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve comphance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as ~ustice may require.\n\n\n\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50, 000 for violation of 49 C. ~~ . ( ), . F R ~~ 195. 452(b), faihng to\nidentify all pipehne segments that could affect a HCA by December 31, 2001. The mtegrity\nmanagement program regulations require hazardous liq p p p\n' uid i eline o erators to develop a written\nt t anagement program that identifies, assesses, and manag es the risks on each pipehne\nsegment that could affect a HCA in the event of a discharge. A full and accurate identifica ion o\nall i ehne segments that could affect HCAs was a crucial first step before an operator could\nimplement further integrity management program requirements, such as\nch as the baseline assessment and\nremediation of the identified segments.\nAfter receiving the Notice, Respondent demonstrated good faith in attempting to come into\n1 . I 't sponse letter Respondent acknowledged that it failed to identify its pipeline\nsegments that could affect the referenced drinking water and ecological HCAs prior to t e ea ine.\nNotably, Respondent initiated timely corrective action and has now identified additional pipehne\nsegments that could affect HCAs. Respondent has also expressed its intent to bring its integrity\nmanagement segment identification procedures into comp ia hance in accordance with the Notice.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessme nt criteria I assess Respondent 7\na civil penalty of $35, 000 for the violation.\nPa ent of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service Federal regulations\naymen o ec\n(49 C. F. R. ( 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, throug e\na sfer throu htheFederalReserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U . ury.\nS. Treas . Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautica\nCenter, P. O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719\nFailure to pay the $35, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate m\naccordance with 31 U. S. C. j . j 3717 31 C. F R ) 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. $ 89. 23. Pursuant to those same\nh 1 t enalt charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\naut orities, a a e pena yc\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civi pena y may resu\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United a es is ri\nnited States District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice ro osed a comphance order with respect to the violati on of Section 195 452(b). Under\ne o ice propo\n49 U. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation o az\nortation of hazardous hquids or who\nr operates a pipeline facihty is required to comp y 1 with the a hcable safety standards\npp\nestablished under chapter 601 Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. ) ( )\n60118 b and49C. F. R\nP\n$ 190 217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions o to ensure corn hance with the\npipehne safety regulations apphcable to its operations:\nEvaluate all 1, mi es o e\n302 I f the HVL pipeline system in accordance with the requirements of\n,\nPart 195 and identi fy all pipeline segments that could affect HCAs, mc u ing segm\nin or near HCAs composed of drinking water and ecological USAs;\n\n\n\n2 For any segment of the HVL system in or near a HCA that is not identified as a \"could\naffect\" segment as a result of completing Item 1, provide a reliable engmeering study\nillustratmg why a worst case discharge scenario involving the segment would not affect the\nHCA it is in;\n3. For any HVL segment where an engineering study performed pursuant to Item 2 fails to\ndemonstrate that the segment could not affect the HCA it is in, as determined by the Director,\nEastern Region, OPS, designate the segment as a \"could affect\" segment in the master hst\n4. Within 90 days following receipt of this Final Order, submit documentation demonstrating\ncompletion of the required items to the Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\n400 7 \" Street, SW, Room 7128, Washington, DC 20590.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's integrity management program procedures and\nproposed to require amendment of Respondent's segment identification procedures to comply with\nthe requirements of 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452. In its response, Respondent indicated that it had revised\ncertain elements of its segment identification procedures. Although these revisions were\nsummarized in the response letter, the revised procedures themselves were not appended. Therefore,\nthere is insufficient information to determine whether the revisions address all of the inadequacies\ndescribed in the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent's procedures are inadequate to assure the safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60108(a) and 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 237, Respondent is ordered\nto make the following amendments to its integrity management program segment identification\nprocedures:\n1. Amend the procedures to include a field vahdation and quahty assurance review of the\nresults of the segment identification process to ensure that all pipehne segments that could\naffect a HCA have been identified;\nAmend the procedures to include a periodic review of HCA boundaries drawing on\ninformation from field personnel, control center data, census data, and other resources for\nthe purpose of identifying areas newly falhng within the HCA definition;\nAmend the procedures to include an accepted, techmcally sound land flow analysis usmg\nsite-specific spill modehng that incorporates factors such as topological and hydrauhc\ngradients that could stretch the spill pool footprint, or alternatively, provide adequate\ntechnical justifications demonstrating that the overland flow assumptions bemg used for\ndetermining buffer zone size are consistent with conservative or worst case discharge\nscenarios;\n\n\n\nAmend the procedures to account for presence of longer range transport paths such as\nstreams and waterways, and air dispersion in the case ofhighly volatile hquid pipehnes, that\ncan transport releases of commodity or fire-fighting contaminants to HCAs;\nWithin 30 days following receipt of this Final Order, submit the amended procedures and all\ntechnical Justifications demonstrating comphance with this Order to the Director, Eastern\nRegion, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 7 Street, SW, Room 7128, Washington, DC 20590.\nFailure to comply with any provision of this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil\npenalties of up to $100, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial\nenforcement.\nUnder 49 C F R ) 190. 215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder. However, if the civil penalty is paid, Respondent waives the right to petition for\nreconsideration. The fihng of a petition for reconsideration automatically stays the payment of any\ncivil penalty assessed. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). All other terms of the Order,\nincluding any required corrective actions, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nStacey Gerard\nQ Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":14142}