{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420085011","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":"2008-04-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.410(a), 195.412(a), 195.583(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420085011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420085011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420085011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420085011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.410(a),  195.412(a),  195.583(c). The case was opened on 2008-04-08 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420085011_FinalOrder_12172009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085011/420085011_FinalOrder_12172009.pdf\n\n420085011_FinalOrder_12172009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085011/420085011_FinalOrder_12172009_text.pdf\n\n420085011_nopvpco_04082008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085011/420085011_nopvpco_04082008.pdf\n\n420085011_nopvpco_04082008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085011/420085011_nopvpco_04082008_text.pdf\n\n420085011_response to nopv_09292008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085011/420085011_response%20to%20nopv_09292008.pdf\n\n420085011_FinalOrder_12172009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 17 2009\nMr. Brian S. Coffman\nPresident\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n600 North Dairy Ashford\nHouston, TX 77079\nRe: CPF No. 4-2008-5011\nDear Mr. Coffman:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice that were required in order\nfor ConocoPhillips to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This case is now closed.\nYour receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rodrick M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Todd Tullio\nDirector, Regulatory Compliance\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n1000 South Pine\nPonca City, OK 76602\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED[7005 0390 0005 6162 5241]\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 )\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 4-2008-5011\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 10–21, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ConocoPhillips\nPipe Line Company (ConocoPhillips or Respondent). The inspection involved the company’s 8-\ninch highly volatile liquid (HVL) pipeline running from Skellytown, Texas, to Mont Belvieu,\nTexas. ConocoPhillips owns or operates approximately 11,000 miles of natural gas, crude,\npetroleum products, and HVL pipelines worldwide.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 8, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412 and 195.583 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.410 and warning\nthe company to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\nConocoPhillips responded to the Notice by letters dated May 5, August 5, and September 29,\n2008 (collectively, Response). Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation and\nprovided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request\na hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ConocoPhillips did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49\nC.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that ConocoPhillips failed to properly inspect the surface conditions on or\nadjacent to its pipeline right-of-way. Specifically, it alleged that the company had not adequately\nmaintained its pipeline right-of-way to allow aerial inspections, which was its preferred method\nof inspection. The Notice alleged that locations along the pipeline were overgrown with\nvegetation, including bushes, weeds, and trees, which obscured the pipeline markers and made it\ndifficult to determine the pipeline route. Respondent did not contest this allegation.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to properly\ninspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its pipeline right-of-way via aerial inspection.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide protection against atmospheric corrosion,\nas required by § 195.581, that had been found during an inspection. Specifically, it alleged that\nseveral areas of exposed pipeline on the Skelly Belvieu unit exhibited heavy oxidation and that\nother areas exhibited light rust that had not been properly protected. Additionally, it alleged that\na significant portion of the pipeline needed to be painted. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) by\nfailing to protect areas of oxidation and rust on its pipeline in order to protect against\natmospheric corrosion, as required by § 195.581.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a) and 195.583(c), respectively. 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. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nspecified in the proposed compliance order:\nWith respect to Item 1, Respondent has cleared the areas of concern and provided a\n\n\n\n3\nschedule showing when the work was completed, as well as photographs of the\ncompleted work.\nWith respect to Item 3, Respondent has repaired the areas identified in the inspection and\nprovided photographs of the completed repairs.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for the Item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a) (Notice Item 2) – Respondent’s alleged failure to have an\nadequate number of pipeline markers along its right-of-way so that the location of\nthe pipeline is accurately known.\nRespondent stated in its Response that it will continue its program to monitor and add line\nmarkers in the requisite areas. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a) (Notice Item 2) have occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation\nfor any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. 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). The terms of the order, including\nany required corrective action, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be\neffective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ _____________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8917}