{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125005","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":"2012-03-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.208, 195.402(a), 195.581(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.208,  195.402(a),  195.581(a). The case was opened on 2012-03-01 and is reported as closed as of 2013-01-11. Proposed civil penalty: $19,800. Assessed civil penalty: $19,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125005_Closure_01112013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_Closure_01112013.pdf\n\n420125005_Closure_01112013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_Closure_01112013_text.pdf\n\n420125005_Final Order_07162012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_Final%20Order_07162012.pdf\n\n420125005_Final Order_07162012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_Final%20Order_07162012_text.pdf\n\n420125005_NOPV PCP PCO_03012012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03012012.pdf\n\n420125005_NOPV PCP PCO_03012012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03012012_text.pdf\n\n420125005_Operator Response to Notice_03282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125005/420125005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03282012.pdf\n\n420125005_Closure_01112013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 11, 2013\nMs. Deborah Adams\nPresident, Transportation\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC\n600 N. Dairy Ashford\nHouston, TX 77079\nCPF 4-2012-5005\nDear Ms. Adams:\nOn July 16, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n\n420125005_NOPV PCP PCO_03012012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 1, 2012\nMs. Deborah Adams\nPresident, Transportation\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n600 N. Dairy Ashford\nHouston, TX 77079\nCPF 4-2012-5005\nDear Ms. Adams:\nFrom March through August 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nyour pipeline facilities in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §195.208 Welding of supports and braces\nSupports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a\npressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.\nDuring the onsite inspection it was observed that the main pump units at the Clifton\nRidge Terminal had braces that were welded directly to the suction and discharge piping\nof both pumping units. The braces were connected to threaded adjustment rods used to\n\n\n\nline up the piping with the pump suction and discharge flanges. PHMSA inspectors were\nnotified that the pumps and piping were upgraded to the current configuration in 1996.\n2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\ncommence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nDuring the inspection it was noted that ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company’s\n(ConocoPhillips) did not follow their procedures. Specifically, the valve maintenance\nrequired by §195.420 was not performed according to ConocoPhillips’ procedure MPR-\n6005. The procedure, MPR-6005 Inspections and Testing – Block Valve Inspection\nrequires that non-mainline isolation valves necessary for the safe operation of the\nDOT/PHMSA pipeline/pipeline facility are to be inspected at intervals not exceeding 7 ½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year. The non-mainline valves are required to be\nvisually inspected and do not need to be operationally checked.\nThe non-mainline valves at ConocoPhillips Lake Charles Pipe Line Terminal were only\ninspected once during the calendar years of 2009 and 2010 according to records reviewed\nby PHMSA inspectors.\n3. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what\ncoating material may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\nConocoPhillips did not adequately clean and coat portions of pipelines that were exposed\nto the atmosphere and at soil-to-air interfaces to protect against atmospheric corrosion.\nThe following areas were observed during the field inspection of ConocoPhillips\nfacilities and were found to be inadequate:\n• The piping and check valve flange connected to Pump 4 on the Pecan Grove line\nhad coating failure and corrosion.\n• The 30-inch line from Clifton Ridge Terminal breakout tanks had coating failure\nand corrosion at the soil-to-air interface.\n2\n\n\n\n• Valve 94490 attached to Tank 347 in the Lake Charles Refinery had coating\nfailure and corrosion on the flange.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $19,800 for item 2.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 3, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is\nenclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2012-5005 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\n3\n\n\n\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n(ConocoPhillips) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to\nensure the compliance of ConocoPhillips with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to braces welded to the\nsuction and discharge piping at the Clifton Ridge Terminal main pumps,\nConocoPhillips must remove the adjustment rods connecting the braces to the\nsteel supports. ConocoPhillips must survey their operating facilities for similar\nequipment and bring any facilities into compliance with 49 CFR Part 195.\n2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to coating failure and onset\nof corrosion, ConocoPhillips must evaluate the piping surface to ensure that pipe\nintegrity is suitable for the maximum operating pressure of the pipeline. The\nareas must then be cleaned and coated according to 49 CFR Part 195 and\nConocoPhillips procedures.\n3. ConocoPhillips should complete items 1 and 3 within 90 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that ConocoPhillips maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n4\n\n420125005_Final Order_07162012_text.pdf\n\nJuly 16, 2012\nMs. Deborah Adams\nPresident, Transportation\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n600 N. Dairy Ashford\nHouston, TX 77079\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5005\nDear Ms. Adams:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $19,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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. Roderick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5005\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom March through August 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company (CPPL or Respondent) in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma,\nand Louisiana. Respondent operates approximately 10,000 miles of pipeline that transport crude\noil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas and chemicals within the\nUnited States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 1, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice both proposed finding that ConocoPhillips violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.208, 195.402 and\n195.581 and assessing a civil penalty of $19,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed an order requiring Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolations.\nCPPL responded to the Notice by letter dated March 28, 2012 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning corrective actions it took\nin response to the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ConocoPhillips did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.208, which states:\n§ 195.208 Welding of supports and braces.\nSupports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be\noperated at a pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.208 by welding braces directly to\npipe that was then operated at a pressure exceeding 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that braces on the main pump units at CPPL’s Clifton Ridge Terminal were\nwelded directly onto the suction and discharge piping of both pumping units. CPPL assembled\nthe pumps and piping so that the braces connected to threaded adjustment rods that lined up the\npipeline with the pump suction and discharge flanges. CPPL upgraded its system into this\nconfiguration in 1996.1\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation but stated that it identified only one such\nconfiguration in need of remediation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.208 by welding braces directly to pipe that operated at a pressure exceeding 100\np.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\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. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow for its pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CPPL failed to follow its\nprocedure “MPR-6005 Inspections and Testing – Block Valve Inspection,” requiring the\ninspection of non-mainline isolation valves at intervals not to exceed 7½ months but at least\ntwice each calendar year. After reviewing the 2009 and 2010 valve inspection records for its\nLake Charles Pipe Line Terminal, PHMSA inspectors found that the non-mainline valves were\ninspected only once during that two-year period.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, (March 1, 2012) (Violation Report) (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nautomated its field reminder system to prevent missed inspections, during calendar years 2009\nBy its own admission, CPPL identified this issue during a 2010 pre-audit.2 While CPPL has now\nand 2010, CPPL failed to abide by “MPR-6005 Inspections and Testing.”\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and follow for its pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a), which states:\n§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric\ncorrosion and what coating material may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this\nsection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to protect certain\npipelines against atmospheric corrosion by cleaning and coating each pipeline or portion of\npipeline exposed to the atmosphere.\n3 Specifically, the Notice alleged that CPPL failed to protect\nthree portions of its pipeline system from atmospheric corrosion.4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to protect each pipeline or portion of pipeline against\natmospheric corrosion through cleaning and coating.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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\n2 Response, at 2.\n3 None of the exceptions outlined in 195.581(c) apply in this case.\n4 Failed coating and the onset of corrosion were observed in the following areas: (1) the piping and check valve\nflange connected to Pump 4 on the Pecan Grove line; (2) a 30-inch line air/soil interface from the Clifton Ridge\nTerminal breakout tanks; and (3) Valve 94490, attached to Tank 347 in the Lake Charles Refinery. Violation\nReport, at 14.\n\n\n\n4\nrelated series of violations.5\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $19,800 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures, which required\nRespondent to inspect non-mainline isolation valves at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year. CPPL neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty.\nThe importance of performing timely and accurate inspections is clear. Routine testing\ndiminishes the probability and gravity of potential accidents. Since the time of the missed\ninspection, CPPL claims that it has automated its inspection system to prevent similar omissions.\nNotwithstanding these post-inspection actions, CPPL failed to satisfy the twice-yearly inspection\nrequirement for two consecutive years. The proposed penalty in this case accurately reflects the\npotential consequences of such an omission. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $19,800 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $19,800.\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. §§ 195.208 and 195.581(a), 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. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.208 (Item 1), Respondent must remove the\nadjustment rods connecting the braces to the steel supports, survey its operating\nfacilities for similar violations of § 195.208, and bring all facilities into compliance.\n5 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\n5\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.581(a) (Item 3), Respondent must evaluate\nthe piping surface to ensure that pipe integrity is suitable for the maximum operating\npressure of the pipeline and then clean and coat all the areas noted in Item 3,\naccording to 49 C.F.R. Part 196 and CPPL’s procedures.\n3. Items 1 and 3 must be completed within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\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 sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":23408}