{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420095006","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":"2009-03-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420095006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420095006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420095006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420095006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.402(a). The case was opened on 2009-03-30 and is reported as closed as of 2010-04-22. Proposed civil penalty: $200,000. Assessed civil penalty: $200,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420095006_FinalOrder_04062010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095006/420095006_FinalOrder_04062010.pdf\n\n420095006_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095006/420095006_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf\n\n420095006_NOPVPCP_03302009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095006/420095006_NOPVPCP_03302009.pdf\n\n420095006_NOPVPCP_03302009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095006/420095006_NOPVPCP_03302009_text.pdf\n\n420095006_Operator Response_04302009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095006/420095006_Operator%20Response_04302009.pdf\n\n420095006_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf\n\nAPR 6 2010\nMr. Brian S. Coffman\nPresident\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n600 North Dairy Ashford\nHouston, TX 77079\nRe: CPF No. 4-2009-5006\nDear Mr. Coffman:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $200,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of this Final Order\nby certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided in 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Todd L. Tullio, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co.\nSouth Tower 460-68, 1000 South Pine, P.O. Box 1267, Ponca City, OK 74602\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5330]\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. 4-2009-5006\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn February 11–14, 2008, 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 investigation of an accident that occurred on January 8, 2008, involving the release\nof approximately 31,322 barrels of crude oil from a pipeline operated by ConocoPhillips Pipe\nLine Company (ConocoPhillips or Respondent) near Denver City, Texas. The pipeline that\nexperienced the failure is 290 miles in length and transports crude oil between the company’s\nOdessa Pump Station in Ector County, Texas, and the Wasson Pump Station in Yoakum County,\nTexas. ConocoPhillips operates approximately 11,000 miles of pipeline transporting petroleum\nproducts, highly volatile liquids, crude oil, and natural gas, primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, and\nother states in the West and Midwest.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 30, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $200,000 for the alleged violation.\nConocoPhillips responded to the Notice by letter dated April 30, 2009 (Response). Respondent\ndid not contest the allegation of violation but requested that the proposed civil penalty be\nreduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies . . . .\n(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety when\nan emergency condition occurs: . . .\n(4) Taking necessary action, such as emergency shutdown or pressure\nreduction, to minimize the volume of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\nthat is released from any section of a pipeline system in the event of a\nfailure.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(e)(4) by failing to follow its own written\nprocedures for taking actions necessary to minimize the volume of hazardous liquid released\nfrom a pipeline in the event of a failure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s\ncontrol room personnel did not follow written company procedures for responding to indications\nof a leak on its WA (West Texas Area) pipeline, which was followed by a rupture on January 8,\n2008, resulting in the release of approximately 31,322 barrels of crude oil.1\nA post-accident review of the product gain/loss information indicated a seam had leaked for over\n24 hours before the pipeline ruptured. Data showed line losses of approximately 1,500 barrels\nover the 36-hour period preceding the rupture. The pattern of line losses was consistent with a\nleak. Respondent’s procedures required controllers to track gains and losses in order to detect\nabnormal operating conditions, such as a leak. The increase in losses on Respondent’s pipeline\nwas not recognized by the company’s control center as an indication of a leak, as required by the\ncompany’s procedures.\nRespondent also failed to diagnose the rupture and corresponding line pressure loss, as specified\nin its procedures. The control room misinterpreted the pressure loss as a result of a shut-down of\nanother station and attempted to continue to re-pack the ruptured pipeline for over five hours,\ngreatly contributing to the volume of the release. Other information, such as line pressure\nreadings, pump shutdowns, system loss volumes, and alarm data were also available to the\ncontrol room at the time of the accident and would have reinforced indications of a potential\nleak.\nIn its Response, ConocoPhillips indicated that it “will not contest the violation alleged,” but also\nthat it “does not admit to any liability concerning this matter or admit to any violation.”2\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(e)(4) by failing to follow its own procedures for taking necessary actions to minimize\nthe volume of hazardous liquid that was released from its pipeline as a result of a failure.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, March 30, 2009, Exhibit A: ConocoPhillips Operations Manual, Procedure\nAOC-0002, “Abnormal Operating Conditions Pressure-Flow Deviations,” Revision-02, Revised Date-November 16,\n2006.\n2 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n3\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\nIn determining the amount of the civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225,\nI must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $200,000 for violation of § 195.402(e)(4). Based on\nthe evidence in this case, I found that Respondent violated § 195.402(e)(4) by failing to follow\nits own procedures for taking necessary actions to minimize the volume of hazardous liquid\nreleased from a pipeline failure. The violation resulted in the release of approximately 31,322\nbarrels of crude oil near Denver City, Texas, presenting a significant safety risk to the public and\nthe environment. Therefore, I find that the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation,\nincluding the adverse impact on the environment, justify the proposed civil penalty amount.\nRespondent is responsible for compliance with the pipeline safety regulations as the operator of\nthe WA pipeline and is therefore the culpable party, absent some showing that the responsibility\nfor the violations rests with another entity. There was no such showing in this case. With regard\nto the company’s history of prior offenses, there is evidence in the record that Respondent has\nbeen the subject of at least six pipeline safety enforcement cases in the 4-year period prior to\nissuance of the Notice. These prior offenses involved civil penalties and compliance terms for\nviolations of the pipeline safety regulations. Respondent did not provide any evidence\nsuggesting the company is unable to pay the proposed civil penalty. Therefore, I find these\ncriteria further justify the proposed civil penalty amount.\nRespondent requested a reduction to the penalty because the company had “taken significant\nsteps to address the concerns addressed in this NOPV and remediate this situation.\n”3\nRespondent did not explain precisely what steps it had taken, but generally referred to the actions\nit had either taken to remedy the violation found in this case or in response to the Corrective\nAction Order (CAO) issued by PHMSA on January 30, 2008.\n4\n3 Response at 3.\n4 The CAO was issued by PHMSA pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.233 to address the hazardous condition resulting\nfrom the pipeline failure that occurred on January 8, 2008. CPF No. 4-2008-5002H.\n\n\n\n4\nOnce a violation has been discovered, PHMSA expects any prudent and responsible operator to\ntake necessary actions to remediate the violation. Such actions do not constitute grounds for\nreducing a penalty that is based upon an operator’s failure to comply with the regulations prior to\nan inspection or, in this case, at the time of an emergency. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the\nremedial actions taken by Respondent in this case were required by the terms of the CAO.\nTherefore, I find that the company’s post-accident actions do not warrant a reduction in the\nproposed penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $200,000 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(4).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. If submitting a petition, the petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, and a copy sent to the Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address.\nThe petition must be received within 20 days of service, but may be considered timely if\nreceived within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order. The petition must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing\nof the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. If Respondent\nsubmits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision\nand the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final\nOrder are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ _______________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12962}