# PHILLIPS PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120025007_Final Order_06232003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120025007/120025007_Final%20Order_06232003.pdf

120025007_final order_06232003_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120025007/120025007_final%20order_06232003_text.pdf

120025007_final order_06232003_text.pdf

r+&
U 5 Department
of Transportation
Research and
Special Programs
Administration
400 Seventh St S W
Washington D C 20590
Mr. David Ysebaert
President
Philhps 66 Transportation Company
390 Adams Building
Bartlesville, OK 74004
Re: CPF No. 1-2002-5007
Dear Mr Ysebaert:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipehne Safety in the
above-referenced case. It withdraws one allegation of violation, makes a finding of violation, and
assesses a civil penalty of $35, 000. The Final Order also requires certain corrective action and
revision of your integrity management procedures. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the
Final Order. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R.
) 190. 5.
Sincerely,
Gwendolyn M. Hri'1
Pipeline Comphance Registry
Office of Pipehne Safety
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
In the Matter of
Phillips 66
Transportation Company,
Respondent.
CPF No. 1-2002-5007
FINAL ORDER
On February 13-14, 2002, pursuant to 49 U S. C. ) 60117, representatives of the Eastern and Central
Regions, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected Philhps 66 Transportation Company's
(Respondent's) integrity management program at Respondent's facility in Bartlesville, Oklahoma
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter
dated July 3, 2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Comphance
Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C F. R. ) 190. 207, the Notice
proposed finding that Respondent had committed two violations of 49 C. F R. ( 195. 452(b), proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $50, 000 for one of the alleged violations, and proposed that Respondent
take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with
49 C. FR. ) 190237, that Respondent amend its integrity management program segment
identification procedures.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 9, 2002 (Response). Respondent
contested certain aspects of the Notice, offered information explaining its position, and described
the extent to which it intended to take corrective measures Respondent did not request a hearing,
consequently Respondent waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
Item 1 m the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(b) by failing to
identify all of its pipeline segments that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) by
December 31, 2001. Specifically, OPS alleged that Respondent omitted certain highly volatile hquid
(HVL) pipehne segments located in or near drinking water and ecological unusually sensitive areas
(USAs) from its segment identification process and failed to provide adequate technical justifications
for excludmg such HVL pipeline segments.



Under Section 195 452, a hazardous hquid pipeline segment in a HCA is presumed to affect that
HCA unless the operator demonstrates otherwise by conducting a risk assessment This presumption
apphes to all hazardous hquid pipeline segments, including HVL segments. Under Section 195. 450,
the definition of a HCA includes unusually sensitive areas (USAs). Under Section 195. 6, the
definition of a USA includes drinking water and ecological resource areas. Therefore, Respondent
must have either identified its HVL pipehnes in or near drinking water and ecological USAs as
"could affect" segments or provided a rehable engineering assessment demonstrating otherwise by
December 31, 2001.
In its response, Respondent acknowledged that it did not designate its HVL pipeline segments that
intersected with drinking water and ecological USAs as "could affect" segments prior to the
December 31, 2001 deadhne, Although Respondent asserts that it had reason to beheve that these
segments could not affect the relevant HCAs, it did not provide a technical assessment demonstrating
that omitting these HVL segments would not diminish protection of the pubhc and the environment
Moreover, in its response, Respondent notified OPS that after the inspection, it had re-evaluated "the
criteria for HVLs in USAs" and acknowledged that as a result, it had identified additional pipeline
segments that could affect HCAs after the December 31, 2001 deadhne had passed Respondent did
not sufficiently rebut the allegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated
49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(b) by failing to identify all of its pipeline segments that could affect a high
consequence area by December 31, 2001.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION
Item 2 of the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C F. R. ) 195. 452(b) by faihng to
include the TOSCO 12-inch crude oil pipehne located in northwest Kern County, Cah fornia In its
response, Respondent submitted information demonstrating that the allegation was based on the
erroneous use of an outdated map. Based on this information, I am withdrawing this allegation of
violation.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U. S. C. ) 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of
violations.
49 U S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 225 require that, m determinmg the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree
of Respondent's culpabihty, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's abihty to pay the
penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve comphance, the effect on Respondent's
ability to continue in business, and such other matters as ~ustice may require.



The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50, 000 for violation of 49 C. ~~ . ( ), . F R ~~ 195. 452(b), faihng to
identify all pipehne segments that could affect a HCA by December 31, 2001. The mtegrity
management program regulations require hazardous liq p p p
' uid i eline o erators to develop a written
t t anagement program that identifies, assesses, and manag es the risks on each pipehne
segment that could affect a HCA in the event of a discharge. A full and accurate identifica ion o
all i ehne segments that could affect HCAs was a crucial first step before an operator could
implement further integrity management program requirements, such as
ch as the baseline assessment and
remediation of the identified segments.
After receiving the Notice, Respondent demonstrated good faith in attempting to come into
1 . I 't sponse letter Respondent acknowledged that it failed to identify its pipeline
segments that could affect the referenced drinking water and ecological HCAs prior to t e ea ine.
Notably, Respondent initiated timely corrective action and has now identified additional pipehne
segments that could affect HCAs. Respondent has also expressed its intent to bring its integrity
management segment identification procedures into comp ia hance in accordance with the Notice.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessme nt criteria I assess Respondent 7
a civil penalty of $35, 000 for the violation.
Pa ent of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service Federal regulations
aymen o ec
(49 C. F. R. ( 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, throug e
a sfer throu htheFederalReserve
Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U . ury.
S. Treas . Detailed instructions are
contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to Financial
Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautica
Center, P. O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719
Failure to pay the $35, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate m
accordance 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
h 1 t enalt charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not
aut orities, a a e pena yc
made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civi pena y may resu
of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United a es is ri
nited States District Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice ro osed a comphance order with respect to the violati on of Section 195 452(b). Under
e o ice propo
49 U. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation o az
ortation of hazardous hquids or who
r operates a pipeline facihty is required to comp y 1 with the a hcable safety standards
pp
established under chapter 601 Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. ) ( )
60118 b and49C. F. R
P
$ 190 217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions o to ensure corn hance with the
pipehne safety regulations apphcable to its operations:
Evaluate all 1, mi es o e
302 I f the HVL pipeline system in accordance with the requirements of
,
Part 195 and identi fy all pipeline segments that could affect HCAs, mc u ing segm
in or near HCAs composed of drinking water and ecological USAs;



2 For any segment of the HVL system in or near a HCA that is not identified as a "could
affect" segment as a result of completing Item 1, provide a reliable engmeering study
illustratmg why a worst case discharge scenario involving the segment would not affect the
HCA it is in;
3. For any HVL segment where an engineering study performed pursuant to Item 2 fails to
demonstrate that the segment could not affect the HCA it is in, as determined by the Director,
Eastern Region, OPS, designate the segment as a "could affect" segment in the master hst
4. Within 90 days following receipt of this Final Order, submit documentation demonstrating
completion of the required items to the Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,
400 7 " Street, SW, Room 7128, Washington, DC 20590.
AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES
The Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's integrity management program procedures and
proposed to require amendment of Respondent's segment identification procedures to comply with
the requirements of 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452. In its response, Respondent indicated that it had revised
certain elements of its segment identification procedures. Although these revisions were
summarized in the response letter, the revised procedures themselves were not appended. Therefore,
there is insufficient information to determine whether the revisions address all of the inadequacies
described in the Notice.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent's procedures are inadequate to assure the safe operation of its
pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60108(a) and 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 237, Respondent is ordered
to make the following amendments to its integrity management program segment identification
procedures:
1. Amend the procedures to include a field vahdation and quahty assurance review of the
results of the segment identification process to ensure that all pipehne segments that could
affect a HCA have been identified;
Amend the procedures to include a periodic review of HCA boundaries drawing on
information from field personnel, control center data, census data, and other resources for
the purpose of identifying areas newly falhng within the HCA definition;
Amend the procedures to include an accepted, techmcally sound land flow analysis usmg
site-specific spill modehng that incorporates factors such as topological and hydrauhc
gradients that could stretch the spill pool footprint, or alternatively, provide adequate
technical justifications demonstrating that the overland flow assumptions bemg used for
determining buffer zone size are consistent with conservative or worst case discharge
scenarios;



Amend the procedures to account for presence of longer range transport paths such as
streams and waterways, and air dispersion in the case ofhighly volatile hquid pipehnes, that
can transport releases of commodity or fire-fighting contaminants to HCAs;
Within 30 days following receipt of this Final Order, submit the amended procedures and all
technical Justifications demonstrating comphance with this Order to the Director, Eastern
Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 7 Street, SW, Room 7128, Washington, DC 20590.
Failure to comply with any provision of this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil
penalties of up to $100, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial
enforcement.
Under 49 C F R ) 190. 215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final
Order. However, if the civil penalty is paid, Respondent waives the right to petition for
reconsideration. The fihng of a petition for reconsideration automatically stays the payment of any
civil penalty assessed. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). All other terms of the Order,
including any required corrective actions, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator,
upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.
Stacey Gerard
Q Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Date Issued
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 14142