# PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation - **operation:** document - **citation:** CPF 320045013 - **title:** PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation - **source type:** enforcement - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** historical - **official:** true - **published on:** 2004-04-26 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(1), 195.452(c)(1), 195.452(c)(1)(i)(A), 195.452(e), 195.452(f), 195.452(g), 195.452(g)(4), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(4)(i), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(j)(1), 195.452(j)(5), 195.452(k), 195.452(l)(1). - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045013.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045013.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045013 - **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320045013 **body:** Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b)(1), 195.452(c)(1), 195.452(c)(1)(i)(A), 195.452(e), 195.452(f), 195.452(g), 195.452(g)(4), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(4)(i), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(j)(1), 195.452(j)(5), 195.452(k), 195.452(l)(1). The case was opened on 2004-04-26 and is reported as closed as of 2007-02-15. Proposed civil penalty: $35,000. Assessed civil penalty: $35,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status. Official case documents: 320045013_Final Order_08292005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045013/320045013_Final%20Order_08292005.pdf cpf_320045013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045013/cpf_320045013.pdf 320045013_Final Order_08292005.pdf @ U.S. Deportment of Tronsportotion Pipeline ond Hozordous tftoferiols Sofety Administrotion AUG 29 ru05 Mr. David ysebaert General Manager ConocoPhillips pipelines and Terminals P.Q. Box 2t97 (772s2) 600 North Dairy Ashford Houston, TX 77079 RE: CPF No. 3-2004-5013 Dear Mr. Ysebaert: Enclosed is the Final order issued by the Associate Administrator for pipr line Safety lXlt":,:b"_:l,lffi"T* .ur": ,It makes findings of viotarion, assesses u .iuii ."d;":H:;;J;i penalty of of certain :l'l,TlLg,il1,T"in,:lu"ce procedures. The Final Order urro ,p""ines actions ro comply with the pipeline safety regulations and revision oicertain operating and taken to procedures. The penalty pay-"ttt terms are set forth in the Final order, w ntenance penalty is paid and the terms of the compriance order and amendment of pr the civil completed, as determined by the Director, central Region, 1ffi*frffi;i;: ures are ll:i"^d- Your receipt of the Final order constitutes service of that document undt will be s 190.5. 49 C.F.R. Sincerely, fik Aa* /LL=- t/ f, Vm., Rewolds Pipeline iompliance Registry Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure fteven G. Cooper, Counsel for Conocophillips !_t..pl"n G. Ellison, Counsel for Conocophillips Keith H. wooten, piperine integriiy Direetor, conocophiiiips Ivan Huntoon, Director, CentraiRegion, OpS Background 1n2002, Conoco merged with Phillips Petroleum Company to create a new entit ConocoPhillips Pipelines and Terminals. At that time each entity was operating a separate ty Management Program @vIP). An IMP inspection was conducted at Phillips inFebruary 2002 Conoco's IMP was inspected by OPS in September,2002. Although Respondent informed O of its intent to integratethetwo separateIMPs, OPS toldRespondent in2002 thattheycouldmain mtwo separate baseline assessments. The Notice is unrelated to the factthat Respondent had separate IMPs at the time of the inspection. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION Uncontested Respondent did not contest the alleged violation of $ 195.452 in Items 3(B),4(A- B), and 7(A- E), 8(A, C), 9(A-C) and 10(A-B) of the Notice. Accordingly, I find violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195. as more fullv described in the Notice: 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(exl) - failure to identify or document the primary for each assessed sesment. 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(f) - failure to include in its written integrity program a process for reviewing and updating assumptions used in the risk 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(g) and (iX1-4) - failure to analyze all available in about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a fi Respondent failed to provide for the timely use of the Assessment Hi Plaruring Document, used to capture data from the information analysis; develop a formal process to assure that the input information is cu running the risk analysis, as the data obtained from prior internal inspec (ILI) was not being used as required for input to the risk model or as val the risk results; and failure to develop a formal process for conducti Matter Experts (SME) evaluations that provides a logical documented st 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(i)(1) - failure to take sufficient measures to p mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect Respondent's Preventive and Mitigative Process needs to be expanded HCA specific risk drivers that exist in each HCA and failure to integra analysis with the preventive and mitigative process for HCA segments. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent taken against Respondent. , 5(A-C), 6(4.- prior to on tools identify its risk Contested Item 2 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452 ( including in its written baseline assessment plan(BAP) internal inspection tools detecting deformation anomalies in the pipe that must be repaired as required by $ 195.452(h). At the time of the inspection, Respondent was performing pipeli evaluate only top side dents identified in High Consequences Areas (HCAs). reviewed five out of eight ILI tool runs which revealed that only a gauging plate identify deformations in the piggable segments. OPS determined that these ej identified as prior assessments in the BAP, will require a geometry tool run to assessment. tXiXa) by not (ILI) capable of excavatrons to OPS inspectors assessments, all ualify as a prior Irr its response to ltem2" Respondent asserted that OPS failed to provide an uate regulatory basis for the Notice and that the IMP rules does not require that the internal i Lon tool used in its baseline assessment must be capable of discerning the anomalies listed in 49 C.F R. $ 1e5.4s2(h). Respondent argued that the internal inspection performed in its prior assessments clearly meet the requirements of the IMP rule. Respondent advised that it has made unp rmderstand how OPS interpreted and implemented IMP. Respondent further advi and integration of its two IMPs, Conoco and Phillips, is very complex. Respond thatthemerger t asserted that it was first notified during the inspection that OPS interpreted the IMP regulati assessments to require running geometry inspection tools in a more rigorous on that the rule requires. OPS argued that the process used by Respondent was inadequate to find a Respondent's plan was to run a MFL tool for top side dents with metal loss. The the type of tool that can find the requisite defects and that the plan should have i a deformation tool. OPS further argued that Respondent understands the intent knowledge of the rule. As a result of an IMP inspection in February 2002, Phl enforcement document that directed it to provide more details in the IMP processes the inputs and outputs of these processes. On a second occasion, this matter was di with the IMP team members of both Conoco and Phillips in September 2002, official were present during most of the Conoco IMP inspection. OPS argued that through two IMP inspections and the resulting enforcement action, Respondent the IMP rule requirements. or anomaly, as MFL tool is not luded the use of and has clear ips received an Phillips IMP rhaving gone fully aware of Respondent argued that had OPS advised Respondent earlier of OPS interpretati could have been avoided. Respondent suggested that the violation has been completed the baseline assessment for 50% of its pipe segments that could employing the ILI tools identified by OPS. the violation as it has , bct HCAs by OFS couiitered that, ,Jiiring ihc hearing, Respondent was informed that once its n conducting a correct risk analysis were in place it should complete a new ri segments in the Conoco and Phillips BAPs. OPS also requested the new risk a applied first to those line segments that had not yet been assessed and then applied ttrat naa akeadybeen assessed. OPS concluded that Respondent's post hearing sub to show that Respondent addressed OPS directions and require additional modifi procedures for ranking of all lysis process be those segments issions still fail 4 Contrary to Respondent's position, the focus of the Notice are the inadequate p procedures to achieve the optimal results and not the fact that Respondent had or was in the process of integrating the two program .h2002, OPS told Respond maintain two separate baseline assessments. , processes and separate IMPs that they could At the time of the inspection, Conoco was using a geometry tool to assess de along with an ILI tool to find other anomalies. However, Phillips used a gaugr used a geometry tool occasionally. Phillips was only digging top side dents. place but the process was inadequate to find the deformation anomalies, de grooves. The plan should have included the use of a deformationtool. The MFL of tool that can identify the requisite defects. There are two pieces of implementation and the plan and process. There was a lack of consideration in Respondent may have changed its plan as suggested on page 8 of its brief dated and intends to meet the baseline assessment, at the time of the inspection performing pipeline excavations to evaluate only top side dents identified in HC post hearing submissions fail to show that this issue has been satisfactorily I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.452 (cXlXiXa) by not includi baseline assessment plan ILI tools capable of detecting deformation anomalies in t be repaired as required by 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(h). ns in the pipe plate and only process was in I is not the type involved. the ugust I1,2004, Respondent's , Accordingly, g in its written pipe that must Item 3A of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.4 establishing an integrity assessment schedule that prioritizes pipeline segments for Notice further alleged Respondent did not base the assessment schedule on all reflect the risk conditions on the pipeline segment. The factors an operator must but are not limited to 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452 (e)(1)(! through (eXlXix). At the time Respondent was using two different risk models to risk rank the pipelines and was notprovided adequate informationto determinewhetherthehighestriskpipeh being assessed as required by the IMP rule. 2 (e)(1) by not risk factors that ider include. f the inspection, inspection team segments were In its response to Item 34, Respondent asserted that prior to the merger each oper completed baseline assessments of 50% of its riskiest pipeline segments that cou within the required time frame and that each developed a written integrity mana successfully affect an HCA t plan that addressed the risks of each segment, with the baseline assessment to be developed from prioritizingthe risk factors on each segment. Respondent explained that efforts have been made to meet the requirements of each of the integrity manag nce the merger, ent plans of the two legacy companies by performing the planned baseline assessments. Resp that it has been working to create a third integrated integrity management plan adopts the best practices of each of the two legacy plans that one day will fully replace the two pl Respondent posed that OPS is aware of these efforts and support them. Respondent further ar1 that the IMP rule recognizes lhat the livfP is a continually- changing program that will sr'zslr'r frorn the initial program and that a provision of the rule requires Respondent to document char to its baseline ptutt. fnt -le specifically contemplates at least one such change-when a new HC is identified and ihat newly identified HCA must be added to the baseline plan within one year d assessed in 5 years. OPS clarified that there can be a Conoco baseline assessment plan (BAP) and teHeritageBAP or the Respondent can have a single BAP. It is the Respondent's choice. The is not whether there are separate BAPs or a single BAP. OPS argued that its findings stemmed Respondent's failure to provide sufficient information during the inspection to support the ion that the two lists were risk ranked as required by 49 C.F.R. 5 I95.452. There is a lack of il to explain the process or to show how Respondent created the list of the highest risk pipeli segments. Both IMPs lacked the attributes to demonstrate risk ranking, as OPS could not ine from the information provided how Respondent arrived at its results. Contraryto Respondent:s position, the focus of Item 3 is an inadequate desc of the processes used to achieve the identified results, not whether it had BAP. Respondent submitted additional information during the pre-hearing and Much of the information submitted addressed Respondent's future plans to comp While there is no requirement that Respondent have a single BAP, adequate details to explain the process used to determine the prioritization of assessed. Nevertheless, Respondent provided no information to support the pri used to develop the two lists that risk ranked the pipelines. The process for priority of assessment action must be carefully explained. Respondent has fai document the risk analysis process. Accordingly, I find that Respondent vi 519s,4s2 (eX1). or explanation BAPs or a single -hearing stages. e a single BAP. must provide me segments ftrzatron process ining the relative to adequately Iated 49 C.F.R. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. ' 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exc ' violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for an violations. The Notice proposed a $35,000 civil penalty for violations of 49 C.F $100,000 per related series of Part 195. 49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 require that, in determining the penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's penalty, good faithbyRespondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. of the civil iolation, degree ility to pay the n Respondent's Item 2 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for violati of 49 C.F.R. $195.452(cX1)(a), as Respondent failed to include in its written baseline capable of detecting deformation anomalies in the pipe that must be repaired as 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(h). In response to Item 2,ilte Respondent argued that t penalty should not be levied for any real or perceived missteps it may have m process because the IMP rule was meant to be a broad and flexible, performance lew