{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125006M","title":"PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-03-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.132, 195.205, 195.264, 195.264(c), 195.307, 195.405(a), 195.405(b), 195.428(c), 195.430, 195.432(b), 195.432(c), 195.436, 195.565, 195.571, 195.573(d), 195.579(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125006m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125006m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125006m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125006M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.132,  195.205,  195.264,  195.264(c),  195.307,  195.405(a),  195.405(b),  195.428(c),  195.430,  195.432(b),  195.432(c),  195.436,  195.565,  195.571,  195.573(d),  195.579(d). The case was opened on 2012-03-09 and is reported as closed as of 2014-12-04. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125006M_Closure_12042014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_Closure_12042014.pdf\n\n420125006M_Closure_12042014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_Closure_12042014_text.pdf\n\n420125006M_NOA_03092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_NOA_03092012.pdf\n\n420125006M_NOA_03092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_NOA_03092012_text.pdf\n\n420125006M_Operator Response to NOA_05102012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_Operator%20Response%20to%20NOA_05102012.pdf\n\n420125006M_Order Directing Amendment_03192014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03192014.pdf\n\n420125006M_Order Directing Amendment_03192014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125006M/420125006M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03192014_text.pdf\n\n420125006M_Order Directing Amendment_03192014_text.pdf\n\nMARCH 19, 2014\nMr. Greg C. Garland, Chairman and CEO\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\n3010 Briarpark Drive\nNinth Floor\nHouston, TX 77042\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5006M\nDear Mr. Garland:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nwithdraws and/or modifies certain items, makes findings of inadequate procedures, and requires\nthat Phillips 66 amend certain operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of\nprocedures has been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by certified mail\nis effective 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. Todd I. Tullio, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC,\n600 N. Dairy Ashford TN-5022, Houston, TX 77079\nMr. Rodrick M. Seeley, Southwest Region Director, 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)\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5006M\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nDuring May 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the\nprocedures for operating and maintaining the breakout tank facilities of Phillips 66 (Phillips or\nRespondent) in Cushing, OK. Phillips owns or has interest in 11 refineries in the United States\nand delivers crude oil, refined products, natural gas, and natural gas liquids.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 9, 2012, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). The Notice\nalleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s written procedures for operations, maintenance and\nemergencies and requested, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, that Respondent amend\nthem.\nPhillips responded to the Notice on behalf of ConocoPhillips1 by letter dated May 10, 2012\n(Response), and submitted amended procedures. Upon reviewing the amended procedures,\nPHMSA requested further revisions by email on July 27, 2012 (First Request) and Phillips\nresponded on September 5, 2012 (Second Response), submitted additional revisions, and\nrequested an additional meeting with PHMSA.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. The Director has\nreviewed the amended procedures submitted by Respondent on July 17, 2012, and\nSeptember 5, 2012. Based on the result of this review, I find that Respondent's amendments\nadequately address Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 19 in the Notice. For the reasons discussed\nbelow, I find the amendments still do not adequately address Items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 20.\nFor the reasons discussed below, I am withdrawing items 10, 13, 16, and 18.\n1 The Notice was issued to ConocoPhillips, which separated its Phillips 66 subsidiary from its remaining businesses\non April 30, 2012. Phillips 66 is the owner/operator of the Cushing facility and will therefore be considered the\nRespondent for purposes of this Final Order.\nhttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1534701/000119312512151117/d319224dex991 htm\n(last accessed 8/16/2013).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s procedures. Respondent did not contest\nthe allegations and submitted amended procedures to address the inadequacies but stated that, by\nsubmitting its response, Phillips was not waiving any right, privilege, or objection in any\nseparate or subsequent proceeding. As noted above, I have reviewed the revised procedures and\nconsidered the following factors: relevant available pipeline safety data; whether the procedures\nare adequate for Respondent’s unique facilities and for the facilities’ particular location; the\nreasonableness of the procedures; and the extent to which the procedures contribute to public\nsafety. Upon such review of the revised procedures under 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, I find the\nfollowing procedures to be inadequate:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.132, which\nstates in relevant part:\n2\n§ 195.132 Aboveground breakout tank.\n(a) Each aboveground breakout tank must be designed and constructed\nto withstand the internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to be\nstored therein and any anticipated external loads.\n(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after\nOctober 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires\none of the following:\n(1) . . .\n(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space pressures\ngreater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of 2000 gallons\n(7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) must be designed\nand constructed in accordance with API Standard 2510.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure MI-0320 - Pressure Storage Tanks simply\nrequired that pressure storage tank inspections would be conducted according to API 510.\nAlthough the procedure listed both API 510 and API 2510 as references, the procedure\nspecifically disclaimed incorporation of these documents.3 PHMSA alleged that, since the\nrequirements of API 2510 are not specifically referenced in the text of this procedure, MI-0320-\nPressure Storage Tanks was inadequate.\nIn its First Response, Phillips summarily stated that it amended Section 3.1.1 of this procedure as\nfollows: “DOT Pressure Vessels shall be constructed per the requirements of API 2510.”\nNeither this revision nor the version submitted by Phillips on September 5, 2012, address both\nthe design and construction requirements of § 195.132 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Phillips\n2 Since the Notice of Amendment was issued, the section heading of this regulation has been changed to “Design\nand construction of aboveground breakout tanks.”\n3 The disclaimer states: “The listed documents are not by reference part of this procedure. Reference is made only\nto the paragraph or section listed and not the entire document.” For purposes of this Order, this statement will be\nreferred to as “the disclaimer.”\n\n\n\n3\nis ordered to make additional revisions to its procedures specifying that all high-pressure tanks\nmust be designed and constructed according to API 2510.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.205, which\nstates in relevant part:\n§ 195.205 Repair, alteration and reconstruction of aboveground\nbreakout tanks that have been in service.\n(a) Aboveground breakout tanks that have been repaired, altered, or\nreconstructed and returned to service must be capable of withstanding the\ninternal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to be stored therein and\nany anticipated external loads.\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this\nsection requires the following for the tanks specified:…\n(2) For tanks built to API Specification 12F or API Standard 620, the\nrepair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in accordance with the\ndesign, welding, examination, and material requirements of those\nrespective standards.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures failed to implement 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.205(b)(2) because MI-0310 - Atmospheric Storage Tanks does not state that tanks built to\nAPI Specification 12F or API Standard 620 must be repaired, altered, and reconstructed in\naccordance with the design, welding, examination, and material requirements of these respective\nstandards.\nIn its First Response, Phillips submitted an amended version. However, the procedure is still\ndeficient in that only the “Philosophy” section was amended to read the “repair of DOT Breakout\nAPI 12F tanks shall be performed to the code of construction.” To comply with § 195.205(b)(2),\nRespondent must have a procedure for the repair, alteration, and reconstruction of tanks. In its\nSecond Response, Phillips made additional changes to the “Philosophy” section, but failed to\nmake changes to the body of its procedure.\nPhillips must amend the actual procedure, MI-0310 - Atmospheric Storage Tanks, MI-0310 -\nAtmospheric Storage Tanks, to remove any ambiguity that not only repairs, but also alteration\nand reconstruction, are also covered. Accordingly, Phillips is hereby ordered to amend its\nprocedures to indicate that repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be conducted in accordance\nwith the design, welding, examination, and material requirements of API Specification 12F or\nAPI Standard 620, according to the requirements of §195.205(b)(2).\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.264(c),\nwhich states:\n\n\n\n4\n§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency\nventing or pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.\n(c) Aboveground breakout tank areas must be adequately protected\nagainst unauthorized entry.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedure CPPL-MPR-2201- Security and Signs is\ninadequate because it does not clarify how Phillips, across all of its assets, decides and evaluates\nrequired security measures.\nPhillips stated in its First Response that it modified CPPL-MPR-2201– Security and Signs,\nSection 6.1 to include the various criteria that it uses in the evaluation of its facilities, including\nits Security Program, applicable federal and state regulations (e.g., TSA Pipeline Security\nGuidelines), and industry standards. The Respondent also stated that its security director and\nEmergency Preparedness and Response team evaluate and assess its facilities using these\nstandards. In its First Request, the Southwest Region reiterated its concern with this procedure,\nstating that it “still do[es] not provide information on the security measures that will applied for\neach type of threat so that PHMSA can determine if the security measures are being consistently\napplied across the P66PL pipeline systems.”4\nIn its Second Response, Phillips 66 submitted amended procedures that do not satisfactorily\naddress these issues. Accordingly, Phillips is hereby ordered to amend its procedure to specify\nits security requirements based on risk factors, regulatory status (e.g., CFATS, MTSA, TSA\nCritical, etc.), industry standards, and threat information, as provided by local, state, and federal\nlaw enforcement. Then, the procedure must outline what actions Phillips will take to\nconsistently implement security measures across its system.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.307, which\nstates:\n§ 195.307 Pressure testing aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) For aboveground breakout tanks built into API Specification 12F\nand first placed in service after October 2, 2000, pneumatic testing must\nbe in accordance with section 5.3 of API Specification 12 F (incorporated\nby reference, see §195.3).\n(b) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 620 and\nfirst placed in service after October 2, 2000, hydrostatic and pneumatic\ntesting must be in accordance with section 7.18 of API Standard 620\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\n(c) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 650\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3) and first placed in service after\nOctober 2, 2000, testing must be in accordance with Section 5.2 of API\nStandard 650 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\n(d) For aboveground atmospheric pressure breakout tanks constructed\nof carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-refrigerated and\n4 First Response.\n\n\n\n5\ntanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C that are\nreturned to service after October 2, 2000, the necessity for the hydrostatic\ntesting of repair, alteration, and reconstruction is covered in section 10.3\nof API Standard 653.\n(e) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 and\nfirst placed in service after October 2, 2000, pressure testing must be in\naccordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,\nDivision 1 or 2.\nThe Notice alleged several deficiencies in Phillips’ testing procedures for aboveground breakout\ntanks. To simplify the issues, I have delineated the deficiencies as follows:\n1. 2. 3. 4. No procedure for hydrostatic and pneumatic testing of API 12 F tanks;\nHydrostatic Testing – Atmospheric Storage Tanks (Revision 1, Effective 12/17.2009)\nCPPL-MPR-6202, Paragraph 1.2 referenced the current version of API 650 and API\n653, not the version of the standards incorporated by reference into Part 195;\nCPPL-MPR-6202 Hydrostatic Testing stated that the procedure is for new/repaired\natmospheric tanks but should also include tanks that have had a major alteration/repair\nrequiring hydrostatic testing according to API 653 definition 3.20;\nPressure Storage Tanks MI-320, Section 3.3 requires that pressure testing be conducted\npursuant to API-510 or ASME Section VIII, Section UG-99. Section 195.307(e) requires\nthat tanks placed into service after October 2, 2000, be tested using ASME Boiler and\nPressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1 or 2. (Operator references API\n510/ASME VIII, so Phillips must modify the procedure to be consistent with the\nrequirements of 195.307(e) for PHMSA -regulated high pressure tanks).\nThe Respondent submitted amended procedures in its First Response, which:\n1. 2. 3. Modified TSD -9401- Atmospheric Storage Tank Standard Design to include: “Small\nDiameter DOT Breakout tanks shall be either built to API 12F or API 650 Appendix J\nand will follow the requirements of the applicable standard” in section 1.3.\nModified MPR-6202-Hydrostatic Testing Atmospheric Storage Tanks to include “major\nalterations” in section 7.1.2.1; and\nModified MI-0320 – Pressure Storage Vessels to include “for tanks constructed after\nOctober 2, 2000” in section 3.3.2.\nIn its Second Response, Phillips further amended its procedures. The Region maintains that\nthese procedures are still inadequate and should be further amended, as described in the next\nparagraph.\nAccordingly, Phillips is hereby ordered to amend its procedure MPR-6202 Hydrostatic Testing –\nAtmospheric Storage Tanks to: specify the requirements for testing small diameter, shop-\nfabricated tanks be consistent with the requirements of Part 195; specify the correct version of\nstandards incorporated in Part 195; include repairs, alterations, and reconstruction as\nrequirements for API 653 hydrostatic testing of atmospheric tanks; and resolve the contradiction\nbetween procedures for the proper testing of API 12F and API 653 Appendix J tanks.\n\n\n\n6\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.405(a), which states:\n§ 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress involving\nfloating roofs.\n(a) After October 2, 2000, protection provided against ignitions arising\nout of static electricity, lightning, and stray currents during operation and\nmaintenance activities involving aboveground breakout tanks must be in\naccordance with API Recommended Practice 2003, unless the operator\nnotes in the procedural manual (§195.402(c)) why compliance with all or\ncertain provisions of API Recommended Practice 2003 is not necessary\nfor the safety of a particular breakout tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Phillips’ procedure MPR-4017 - Safety Precautions- Protection against\nIgnition due to Static Electricity, Lightning, and Stray Currents is inadequate because it did not\nconsistently cross-reference its related procedures, which allow personnel to easily locate and\nrefer to the appropriate requirements. In addition, MPR-4017 incorporated API RP 2003, but\nrestricted it to Section 4.5.5 Last, procedures MI-0320 – Pressure Storage Tanks and MI-0204 –\nAPI 510 Pressure Vessel Policy did not include grounding requirements.\nIn its Second Response, Phillips resubmitted MPR-401, but did not specifically state what\namendments, if any, were made. The Region maintains that these procedures are inadequate and\nshould be further amended but has failed to specify why the revised procedure remains\ninadequate. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Phillips’\namended procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation. Therefore, this item is withdrawn.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.405, which states:\n§ 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress involving\nfloating roofs.\n(a) …\n(b) The hazards associated with access/egress onto floating\nroofs of in-service aboveground breakout tanks to perform inspection,\nservice, maintenance or repair activities (other than specified general\nconsiderations, specified routine tasks or entering tanks removed from\nservice for cleaning) are addressed in API Publication 2026. After\nOctober 2, 2000, the operator must review and consider the potentially\nhazardous conditions, safety practices and procedures in API Publication\n2026 for inclusion in the procedure manual (§195.402(c)).\n5 API 2003 Section 5.4.2 also covers atmospheric storage tanks.\n\n\n\n7\nThe Notice alleged that Phillips’ procedure, MPR-4017-Protection against Ignition Due to Static\nElectricity, Lightning, and Stray Currents, failed to reference or incorporate the requirements of\nAPI Publication 2026.\nIn its First Response, Phillips modified the relevant procedure to “include API 2026 in the\nreference.” In PHMSA’s July 17, 2012 response, PHMSA noted that, while the procedure was\nrevised to list API 2026 as the referenced standard, the procedure also includes a disclaimer that\nobviated the issue.6 I find that Phillips’ modification is sufficient, with one exception: the\nprocedure must address safe access and ingress involving floating roofs.\nItem 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.310, which states:\n§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be-\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;+\n(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is\nclear; and\n(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.\nThe Notice alleged that Phillips’ HSE Policy, Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance – Fire\nProtection did not specify how Respondent allocated responsibility for or determined the\nnecessary equipment at each facility. In those cases where the Respondent utilizes an agency to\nprovide equipment and personnel, the operator’s procedures must outline how the operator\nverifies the adequacy of the equipment provided by the agency to satisfy the requirements of\n§ 195.430.\nIn its Response, Phillips modified its procedure to include the criteria that its personnel use to\nevaluate its facilities and determine the adequacy of its fire fighting systems and equipment.\nHowever, in PHMSA’s First Request, PHMSA stated that Phillips’ modification did not provide\ninformation on how Phillips verified adherence to the requirements of § 195.430. Furthermore,\nPHMSA questioned the use of the word “incipient” in the description of Phillips firefighting\nsystems. Phillips, in its Second Response, requested that the Southwest Region meet to discuss\nthese proposed modifications. The Southwest Region did not meet with the operator and\ncontinues to maintain that the policy is inadequate but has not explained what continues to be\ninadequate.\nAccordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Phillips’ amended\nprocedures are inadequate to assure safe operation. Therefore, this item is withdrawn.\n6 CPPL-MPR-4017-WD2, Section 2 “References” states that “the listed documents are not by reference part of this\nprocedure. Reference is made only to the paragraph or sections listed and not the entire document.”\n\n\n\n8\nItem 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432, which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) …\n(c) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service steel\naboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 according to\nsection 6 of API 510.\nThe Notice alleged that Phillips’ procedures related to the inspection of pressure vessels do not\ncontain appropriate cross references or adequately define scope. MPR-2813A, PPI-Form – GPL-\n192A – Instructions, Routine Pressure Vessel Inspection report, and AIP-08, Pressure Vessel\nProgram, and MI-0204, API510 – Pressure Vessel Policy involve the inspection of in-service\nbreakout tanks, but it is unclear when each procedure applies and when to cross-reference\nanother procedure. PHMSA also noted that MI-320, Pressure Storage Tanks, refers to\n“individuals required to perform API 510 inspections on tanks built to the API 2510 standard”7\nas “authorized inspectors” and not “authorized pressure vessel inspector.” The latter term is used\nand defined in API 510, so it is appropriate for Respondent to amend its term accordingly.\nIn its First Response, Phillips submitted revised procedure MPR-2813A to include an\n“Authorized Inspector” in section 2.3. PHMSA responded that Phillips’ response did not\nidentify the scope and cross-referencing issues described above. In addition, the modification\ndid not address the “authorized pressure vessel inspector” term.\nAccording to the Region, Phillips resubmitted MPR-2813 without additional change and the\nissues identified above remain. Respondent must modify the procedures referenced above to\nclearly identify the scope of each inspection, cross references each procedure involving pressure\nvessel inspections, and use the term “authorized pressure vessel inspector,” as appropriate.\nItem 16: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.436, which states:\n§ 195.436 Security of facilities.\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and\nbreakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry.\nThe Notice alleged that Phillips’ procedure MPR-2201, Facilities – Security and Signs did not\nspecifically state the protection provided for each pumping station, breakout tank area, or other\nexposed facility.\nIn its First Response, Phillips submitted its procedure, which included the criteria for evaluation\nof its facilities, namely Respondent’s security program, and applicable federal and state\n7 NOA, 12.\n\n\n\n9\nregulations, industry guidance, and certain other criteria. PHMSA, in its First Request, stated\nthat while the Respondent modified its procedures to include security measures and review\ncriteria, the procedure still did not specify the actions that will be taken pursuant to such a\nreview. Phillips’ Second Response does not identify any additional modifications. The Region\nmaintains that these procedures are still inadequate and should be further amended. However,\nthe Region failed to provide evidence that specifies how the procedure should be amended.\nAccordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Phillips’ amended\nprocedures are inadequate to assure safe operation. Therefore, this item is withdrawn.\nItem 17: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.565, which states:\n§ 195.565 How do I install cathodic protection on breakout tanks?\nAfter October 2, 2000, when you install cathodic protection under Sec.\n195.563(a) to protect the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank of more\nthan 500 barrels (79.5m3) capacity built to API Specification 12F, API\nStandard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C), you\nmust install the system in accordance with API Recommended Practice\n651. However, installation of the system need not comply with API\nRecommended Practice 651 on any tank for which you note in the\ncorrosion control procedures established under Sec. 195.402(c)(3) why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice\n651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that the Phillips’ procedure, MPR-7002, Corrosion Control – Cathodic\nProtection Requirements, did not reference the correct version of API 651 or specify that\ncathodic protection facilities installed on breakout tanks after October 2, 2000, must be built in\naccordance with API 651, Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks.\nIn its First Response, Phillips amended MPR-7002 to include the correct reference and added a\nstatement to section 78 of the procedure to address the design and construction of cathodic\nprotection systems installed on breakout tanks built after October 2, 2000. In its First Request,\nPHMSA acknowledged these changes, but questioned the disclaimer.\nI find that this revision is adequate.\nItem 18: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571, which states:\n8 “All cathodic protection systems installed on breakout tanks built after October 2, 2000 to protect from soil side\ncorrosion are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of API RP651.” Section 7, May\n10, 2012 MPR 7002 procedure.\n\n\n\n10\n§ 195.571 Which criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Phillips’ procedure, MPR-7002, Corrosion Control – Cathodic\nProtection Requirements, is inadequate because it references an outdated version of API 651 that\nis not incorporated into the regulation and does not include specific criteria for the determination\nof the adequacy of the cathodic protection. The Notice questioned the adequacy of the\nprocedure, given that it includes both a general disclaimer9 and does not explicitly include the\nstandard spelled out in NACE SP 0169.\nIn its First Response, Phillips revised MPR-7002 by adding API 651, 3rd Edition and NACE\nSP0169-2007 to Section 1.2, Industry Standards and Section 5.10 However, Respondent did not\nremove the disclaimer, reference, or incorporate paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP0169. On\nJuly 17, 2012, PHMSA acknowledged these modifications, but stated that MPR-7002 still\nincluded the disclaimer and now referenced MPR-7004 in Section 5, which raised issues\nconcerning the consideration of voltage (IR drop).11 On September 5, 2012, Respondent further\nmodified MPR-7002, but did not identify the modifications made. The Region maintains that\nthese procedures are still inadequate and should be further amended but has not specified what\nthe inadequacies are.\nAccordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Phillips’ amended\nprocedures are inadequate to assure safe operation. Therefore, this item is withdrawn.\nItem 20: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.579 which state:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) …\n(d) Breakout tanks. After October 2, 2000, when you install a tank\nbottom lining in an aboveground breakout tank built to API Specification\n12F, API Standard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its predecessor Standard\n12C), you must install the lining in accordance with API Recommended\n9 “The listed documents are not by reference part of this procedure. Reference is made only to the paragraph or\nsection listed and not the entire document.”\n10 Section 5, Determining Required Cathodic Protection Current, states “See MPR-7004 for cathodic protection\ncriteria.\n11 “P66PL indicates in procedure MPR-7004 that the -850 mV ‘on’ criterion is being used but then indicates the\nfollowing: ‘Consideration’ of voltage (IR) drop and demonstration of criteria compliance can involve but do not\nnecessarily require quantification of IR drop…P66PL must make additional modifications [to] clarify the standards\nand procedures that are referenced by MPR-7002 and MPR-7004, include only one legitimate means of considering\nIR drop (emphasis included).”\n\n\n\n11\nPractice 652. However, installation of the lining need not comply with\nAPI Recommended Practice 652 on any tank for which you note in the\ncorrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3) why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice\n652 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that neither procedure TRP-4002, Recommended Practice for Protective\nCoatings for Storage Tank Interiors, nor procedure TSP-8003 Internal Tank Linings – Protective\nPaint Coatings for on Shore Above-Grade Tanks and Vessels require that tank linings be\ninstalled in accordance with API Recommended Practice 652.\nIn its First Response, Phillips modified TRP-4002.12 However, the procedure also included a\ndisclaimer.13 On July 12, 2012, PHMSA responded to Phillips by email, stating that the\ndisclaimer obfuscated the issue and therefore the response was inadequate. Phillips forwarded a\nsecond set of modified procedures on September 5, 2012, removing the language. The\nSeptember 5, 2012 version states that “This Recommended Practice must be followed as a\nrequirement for the internal linings of DOT Regulated Breakout Tanks (emphasis added).”\nUnder the References heading, the procedure states that “CPPL shall use the versions that are\nincorporated by reference in 49 CFR 192 and 195.” The regulatory and technical reference\nheadings follow this section and cite to 49 CFR 195.579(d) and API RP 652. I find that Phillips\nhas adequately modified TRP-4002-WD1. However, Respondent included no evidence that it\nmodified TSP-8003, Internal Tank Linings-Protective Paint Coatings for on Shore Above-Grade\nTanks and Vessels.\nAccordingly, Phillips is ordered to make additional revisions to its TSP-8003 procedure\nspecifically referring to 49 CFR 195.579(d) and API RP 652.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Order Directing Amendment. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same\naddress. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of\nthis Order Directing Amendment by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of\nthe issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Order Directing\nAmendment are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\n12 “This Recommended Practice must be followed as a requirement for the internal linings of DOT Regulated\nBreakout tanks.”\n13 “The listed documents are not by reference part of this procedure. Reference is made only to the paragraph or\nsection listed and not the entire document.”\n\n420125006M_Closure_12042014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 4, 2014\nMr. Todd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\n3010 Briarpark Drive\nHouston, TX 77042\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5006M\nDear Mr. Denton:\nOn March 19, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued to\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC an Order Directing Amendment in the above referenced case. Based\non our review of the procedural revisions you submitted, 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\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR.M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":34942}