{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165002","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":"2016-02-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.246(a), 195.563(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.246(a),  195.563(a). The case was opened on 2016-02-24 and is reported as closed as of 2022-01-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165002_Closure Letter_01262022_(20-176184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Closure%20Letter_01262022_(20-176184).pdf\n\n420165002_Closure Letter_01262022_(20-176184)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Closure%20Letter_01262022_(20-176184)_text.pdf\n\n420165002_Final Order_07122019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Final%20Order_07122019.pdf\n\n420165002_Final Order_07122019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Final%20Order_07122019_text.pdf\n\n420165002_NOPV PCO_02242016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_NOPV%20PCO_02242016.pdf\n\n420165002_NOPV PCO_02242016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_NOPV%20PCO_02242016_text.pdf\n\n420165002_Operator Hearing Exhibits Letter_09302016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Operator%20Hearing%20Exhibits%20Letter_09302016.pdf\n\n420165002_Operator Request for Hearing_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing_04282016.pdf\n\n420165002_Operator Response to Notice_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04282016.pdf\n\n420165002_Operator Statement of Issues_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Operator%20Statement%20of%20Issues_04282016.pdf\n\n420165002_Opertaor Request for Hearing Cover Letter_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165002/420165002_Opertaor%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20Cover%20Letter_04282016.pdf\n\n420165002_Final Order_07122019_text.pdf\n\nJuly 12, 2019\nMr. Todd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\n3010 Briarpark Drive, PWC-7109\nHouston, Texas 77042\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5002\nDear Mr. Denton:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Van P. Williams, Esq., Senior Counsel, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, HST-13-N1348,\n1075 W. Sam Houston Parkway N., Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77042\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between April 13, 2015, through September 17, 2015, pursuant to 49\nU.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of a\nhighly volatile liquids (HVL) pipeline being constructed by Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC (Phillips\n66 or Respondent) at various locations in Texas. Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, a wholly owned\nsubsidiary of Phillips 66, operates more than 12,000 miles of pipelines in the United States that\ntransport both raw and finished petroleum products as well as various terminal facilities.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 24, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Phillips 66 had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 and proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nPhillips 66 responded to the Notice by letter dated April 28, 2016.2 Respondent contested the\nallegation and requested a hearing. Phillips 66 provided a pre-hearing submission by letter dated\nSeptember 30, 2016 and a hearing was subsequently held on October 13, 2016 in Houston,\nTexas, before a PHMSA Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by\ncounsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written material for the record, by\nletter dated November 10, 2016. The Director submitted a region recommendation dated\nDecember 28, 2017 and Respondent submitted a reply to the recommendation dated February 23,\n2018.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Feb. 24, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;\nhttps://www.phillips66midstream.com/EN/Pages/pipelines.aspx (last accessed May 16, 2019).\n2 On March 21, 2016, Phillips 66 requested a 30-day time extension to respond to the Notice, which was granted by\nthe Director on March 28, 2016.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5002\nPage 2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance\nwith comprehensive written specifications or standards that\nare consistent with the requirements of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by installing multiple pipes\nthrough a single bore hole when using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) as part of its Mont\nBelvieu to Sweeney, Texas highly volatile liquid (HVL) pipeline construction project without\nhaving comprehensive written specifications for constructing the pipeline in this manner. The\nNotice referenced §§ 195.246(a) and 195.563(a) and specifically alleged that the written\nconstruction plans and procedures used by Phillips 66 to construct the HVL pipeline at the San\nBernard River crossing were not comprehensive enough to be consistent with the requirements\nof Part 195 because they did not account for the additional stresses and possibility of damage to\nthe pipe or the impact on cathodic protection associated with pulling more than one pipe through\na HDD bore.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Phillips 66 argued that the written specifications and\nprocedures it had in place at the time the multiple pipeline HDD installation at the San Bernard\nRiver crossing was conducted in December 2014 fully complied with the regulations.\nRespondent provided a copy of a written HDD standard P66PL-TIP-4010 which provided\nguidance on HDD drilling in support of pipeline installation.3 Respondent also stated that its\ncontractors, Hard Rock Directional Drilling and Troy Construction, were experienced with\nbundled HDD installations and had processes and procedures for deviations from a single pipe\nHDD installation.4 In connection with the hearing, Phillips 66 also provided e-mail\ncorrespondence with its contractors, a three-page drilling operations plan from Hard Rock\nDirectional Drilling, a two-page description of the ream and swab pass cutter diameters and\nsequence, a Troy Construction daily progress report, a geotechnical exploration data report, a\npulling load summary, bore bumper system instructions, and various other field notes and\nphotographs.5 Phillips 66 argued that collectively these materials constituted comprehensive\nprocedures for installing multiple pipes through a single bore hole when using HDD.\nRespondent also argued that no undue stress, damage, or other specific deficiency in the\nconstruction had been shown that would warrant the issuance of a Notice of Probable Violation\nand Proposed Compliance Order by OPS, and that the issue of adequate cathodic protection was\n3 Response at 2.\n4 Id.\n5 Phillips 66 pre-hearing submission, Exhibits D–T. Phillips 66 is correct that there is no requirement that all\nprocedures used by an operator be contained in a single manual.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5002\nPage 3\nnot a valid concern due to its use of rubber bumpers during the pipe installation.6\nWith respect to Respondent’s argument that its HDD standard P66PL-TIP-4010 in place at the\ntime of construction, together with the various items in its exhibits, constituted comprehensive\nprocedures for installing multiple pipes through a single bore hole when using HDD, during the\nhearing and in the region recommendation, OPS explained that the standard HDD process is\nperformed by pulling a single pipe through a horizontally directionally drilled bore hole with the\npipe being concentric to the bore hole. Respondent’s HDD standard P66PL-TIP-4010 is the\nacknowledged procedure for this operation. According to OPS, however, “the existing Phillips\n66 procedure did not address the complexities or integrity issues introduced by installing\nmultiple pipes through the same bore.”7 Specifically, OPS stated that the existing procedure did\nnot address the additional risks arising from a multiple pipe installation such as damage to the\npipe, damage to the pipe coating, the introduction of excessive stresses on a single pipe or pipes\ndepending on how the pipes are pulled, and the lack of adequate soil compaction around each\npipe to ensure adequate structural support among other things.8 OPS is correct that Respondent’s\nHDD standard P66PL-TIP-4010 did not cover bundled HDD installations.\nIn the materials submitted by Phillips 66 in connection with the hearing, the closest thing to\nwritten specifications for undertaking a bundled HDD installation at the San Bernard River\ncrossing is the Nov. 19, 2014 Specification Deviation Request for Troy Construction which\nstates, in its entirety:\nP66 Integrity Group was contacted on 11/19/14 to grant approval to\ninstall the HDD across the San Bernard River by bundling the two\n(2) 10” & 16”. P66 Integrity Group granted approval to perform the\ntwo bundles. Troy will place spacers on individual pipelines at 10\nfeet intervals to protect the pipe. After the pilot hole has been\ndrilled, the following will take place, the first reamer pass will be a\n30” hole, then ream to 36”, followed by a 42”/48” reamer. The\ndriller plans to clean the hole with a 36”/40” swab pass before\npulling the pipe. The pull heads will be connected to a 2” plate\npinned back by a swivel.\nThe construction of a pipeline at a river crossing is a complex undertaking. Establishing\ncomprehensive construction plans in advance is critical because the pipeline operator is\nresponsible for overseeing its contractors and ensuring that detailed plans are followed and\nquality control is maintained. River crossings are particularly sensitive areas for hazardous\nliquid pipeline construction because once the pipe is in place accessing it for inspection or repair\n6 Response at 2-3.\n7 Region recommendation at 4.\n8 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5002\nPage 4\nif a failure occurs can involve significant environmental and safety consequences.9 The planning\nprocess must be sufficient to ensure appropriate measures are in place to address known risks\nsuch as pipe stress and damage and coating damage when more than one pipe will be installed in\na single bore. These risks are not present in a standard single pipe installation. Therefore,\nRespondent’s HDD standard P66PL-TIP-4010 was inadequate for the San Bernard River\ncrossing, even as supplemented by the extremely austere one-paragraph Specification Deviation\nRequest which did not even include procedures for the use of bumper rings, ensuring that the\nbumper rings could not be damaged or torn off during the pull, or how to validate that adequate\nspacing of 12-inches under Part 195 or electrical isolation required by the regulations would be\nachieved.10 Notably, Phillips 66 subsequently did establish a written procedure in April of 2015\nfor bundled HDD installations in an Appendix A to HDD standard P66PL-TIP-4010 entitled\n“Bundled Drills,” but it was not in place during the relevant period of December 2014 when the\nconstruction took place.11\nAs for Respondent’s argument that no undue stress or pipe damage during the installation had\nbeen shown by the post-installation integrity assessment, while this information is potentially\nrelevant to the proposed compliance order and whether it may be partially satisfied, it is not\ndispositive on the question of whether there was an absence of comprehensive written\nspecifications for constructing the pipeline by installing multiple pipes through a single bore hole\nwhen using HDD.12\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by installing multiple pipes through a single bore hole\nwhen using HDD as part of its Mont Belvieu to Sweeney, Texas HVL pipeline construction\nproject without having comprehensive written specifications for constructing the pipeline in this\nmanner.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\n9 The purpose of the pipeline safety regulations is to provide adequate protection against risks to life, property, and\nthe environment. 49 U.S.C. § 60102.\n10 See 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.250 and 195.575.\n11 Phillips 66 pre-hearing submission, Exhibit C.\n12 In its February 23, 2018 Reply to the Region Recommendation, Respondent took issue with various\nrepresentations made by OPS in the December 28, 2017 recommendation including the accuracy of Figures 1 and 2\nand OPS’ assertions that there was a complete absence of certain procedures involving foreign crossings and\nprotective current, that decisions were made without proper approval, and that Phillips 66 made decisions “on the\nfly.” I disregarded these statements by OPS and my findings in this Order are not based on them in any way\nwhatsoever.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5002\nPage 5\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.202. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation\nof hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nIn its Response, Phillips 66 noted that it had revised its written procedures for HDD to cover\nbundled drills in April 2015. Respondent stated that it has performed an engineering critical\nassessment (ECA) on the two 10-inch segments installed through a single HDD under the San\nBernard River and included a report of an inspection conducted by T.D. Williamson dated June\n19, 2015.13 The Director has indicated that the documentation submitted by Respondent thus far\ndoes not satisfy the requirements of the proposed compliance order.14 Accordingly, the\ncompliance terms are included in this order.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.202 (Item 1), Respondent must develop,\nsubmit and execute a plan to evaluate the integrity of the multiple pipes that were\ninstalled in this manner. The plan must include a means to evaluate each pipe for\nmetal loss; dents; dents with metal loss; cracks; the external coating; adequate\nstructural support of the pipes by the surrounding soil; whether the entire\ncircumference of each of the pipes is in contact with the soil so that each pipe is\nprotected from external corrosion by cathodic protection current; whether excessive\nsecondary stresses were introduced by the installation method; whether the minimum\nrequired spacing requirements have been met; and whether the rubber spacers\ninstalled on the pipes shield the pipes from cathodic protection current. Prior to\ncommencing implementation of the plan, Phillips 66 must submit the proposed plan\nto the Director for approval.\n2. Respondent must submit the plan described in Item 1 of this Compliance Order to\nthe Director for approval within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of this Final\nOrder. Upon the Director’s approval of the plan, Phillips 66 must complete all\nevaluations within ninety (90) days and submit the evaluation results, along with all\nsupporting documents and data, to the Director. If the evaluations indicate that the\ninstallation introduced integrity threats in any of the pipes, Respondent must develop\na plan to mitigate the integrity threats and submit the mitigation plan to the Director\nfor approval with thirty (30) days of completing the evaluations. Upon approval of\nthe mitigation plan by the Director, Phillips 66 must submit documentation\ndemonstrating completion of all items in the mitigation plan to the Director within\none-hundred twenty (120) days of commencing the implementation of the approved\n13 Phillips 66 post-hearing submission, Exhibit W.\n14 Region recommendation at 6-7.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5002\nPage 6\nmitigation plan.\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.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJuly 12, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420165002_Closure Letter_01262022_(20-176184)_text.pdf\n\nELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 26, 2022\nTodd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, L.P.\n3010 Briarpark Drive, PWC-7109\nHouston, Texas 77042\nCPF 4-2016-5002\nDear Mr. Denton:\nFrom April 13, 2015 through September 17, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the Phillips\n66 Pipeline, LLC (Phillips 66, the Operator) Mont Belvieu to Sweeney, TX HVL pipeline. As a\nresult of the inspection PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance\nOrder on February 24, 2016 and Final Order on July 12, 2019.\nPHMSA staff reviewed your responses provided to demonstrate compliance with the Compliance\nOrder and determined that Phillips 66 has substantially complied with the terms of the Final Order.\nThis letter is to inform you no further responses in this case are required, and this case is now\nclosed. Thank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":20752}