{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420185029S","title":"PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Safety Order","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-12-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED safety order.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185029s.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185029s.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185029s","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420185029S","body":"Safety Order involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. The dataset does not identify a cited regulation for this case. The case was opened on 2018-12-11 and is reported as closed as of 2021-01-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420185029S_Closure Letter_01142021_(18-163704S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185029S/420185029S_Closure%20Letter_01142021_(18-163704S).pdf\n\n420185029S_Closure Letter_01142021_(18-163704S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185029S/420185029S_Closure%20Letter_01142021_(18-163704S)_text.pdf\n\n420185029S_Consent Agreement and Order_09042019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185029S/420185029S_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_09042019.pdf\n\n420185029S_Consent Agreement and Order_09042019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185029S/420185029S_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_09042019_text.pdf\n\n420185029S_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12112018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185029S/420185029S_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_12112018.pdf\n\n420185029S_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12112018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185029S/420185029S_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_12112018_text.pdf\n\n420185029S_Consent Agreement and Order_09042019_text.pdf\n\nVIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL:\nTodd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC\n2331 CityWest Blvd.\nHouston, Texas 77042\nRE: In the Matter of Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC– CPF No. 4-2018-5029S\nDear Mr. Denton:\nEnclosed please find the fully executed Consent Agreement and Order that resolves the issues\nunderlying the Notice of Proposed Safety Order issued by PHMSA on December 11, 2018, in the\nabove-referenced proceeding. Your receipt of this Consent Agreement and Order constitutes\nservice, as provided under 49 C.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, OPS\nMs. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline\nSafety, OPS\nMr. Todd Tullio, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC\nMr. Van Williams, Senior Counsel, Phillips 66\nMr. Vince Murchison, Murchison Law Firm\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 )\n)\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n) CPF No. 4-2018-5029S\nCONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER\nOn December 11, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice), to Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC\n(Phillips 66 or Respondent). The Notice alleged that conditions exist on the LO-01 Pipeline\nin Elk City, Oklahoma that poses a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property or the\nenvironment. The Notice also made preliminary findings of fact and proposed certain\ncorrective measures.\nOn February 14, 2019, Phillips 66 responded to the Notice by submitting a timely written\nresponse and request for an informal consultation pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.239(b)(2).\nAn informal consultation was held, commencing on March 14, 2019, between\nrepresentatives from Phillips 66 and PHMSA. By entering into this Consent Agreement,\nPhillips 66 agrees that no further administrative hearing will be provided for in this matter\npursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.239(b)(2).\nAccordingly, upon consent and agreement of the Parties and in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.219, PHMSA and Phillips 66 hereby agree to the terms and conditions set forth in\nthis Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement and Order) to resolve the issues underlying\nthe Notice.\nFor the purposes of this Agreement and Order, the term “Affected Pipeline” means the\nentire 272-mile length of the LO-01 Pipeline.\nI. General Provisions\n1. Respondent acknowledges that the LO-01 Pipeline in Elk City, Oklahoma\nis regulated by PHMSA, and therefore, as the operator, Phillips 66 is subject to the\njurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the\n\n\n\nregulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement\nand Order, Respondent further acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s\naction in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted\npursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued\nthereunder.\n2. Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegation or conclusion in the\nNotice but agrees, for the purposes of this Agreement and Order, that the risk condition\nidentified in the Notice exists and agrees to address, pursuant to Respondent’s repair\ncriteria, said condition and any other identified condition on the pipeline by completing\nthe actions specified in Section II of this Agreement and Order (Corrective Measures), as\nwell as to abide by the terms of this Agreement and Order. This Agreement and Order\ndoes not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or regulation and may not be\nused in any civil or administrative proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact,\nfault or liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation or requirement,\nexcept in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement and Order.\n3. Respondent consents to the issuance of this Agreement and Order, and\nhereby waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Subject to\nthe rights granted by Section V hereof, Respondent waives all rights to contest the\nadequacy of notice, or the validity of this Agreement and Order, including all rights to\nadministrative or judicial hearings, reviews, or appeals.\n4. This Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, PHMSA\nand Phillips 66, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other\nentities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this\nAgreement and Order and any incorporated work plans and schedules to such of Phillips\n66’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance\nwith this Agreement and Order.\n5. For any transfer of ownership or operating responsibility of Phillips 66’s\nLO-01 Pipeline in Elk City, Oklahoma occurring during the term of this Agreement and\nOrder, Respondent will provide a copy of this document to the prospective transferee at\nleast 30 days prior to such transfer. Consistent with federal and state laws applicable to\ncorporate disclosure obligations, Respondent shall provide written notice of the\nprospective transfer to the PHMSA Southwest Region Director (Director) at least 30 days\nprior to such transfer.\n6. This Agreement and Order constitutes the final, complete and exclusive\nagreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied\nherein. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or\nunderstandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement\nand Order.\n\n\n\n7. Nothing in this Agreement and Order affects or relieves Respondent of its\nresponsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety\nlaws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued\nthereunder. Nothing in this Agreement and Order alters PHMSA’s right of access, entry,\ninspection, and information gathering, or PHMSA’s authority to bring enforcement\naction(s) against Phillips 66 pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations\nand orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law, including\nfuture enforcement action relating to Phillips 66’s LO-01 Pipeline.\n8. This Agreement and Order does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or\nlocal law or regulation applicable to Respondent’s LO-01 Pipeline. This Agreement and\nOrder is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local\nlaws or regulations. Phillips 66 remains responsible for achieving and maintaining\ncompliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Agreement and Order does not create rights in, or grant any cause of\naction to, any third party not party to this Agreement and Order. U.S. Department of\nTransportation and PHMSA are not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or\nproperty arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its officers, employees, or agents\ncarrying out the work required by this Agreement and Order. Phillips 66 agrees to hold\nharmless U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, its officers, employees, agents, and\nrepresentatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement and\nOrder.\n10. This Agreement and Order resolves the underlying issues in the Notice.\nThis Agreement and Order makes no findings of violation.\n11. Upon the issuance of this Agreement and Order, Phillips 66 agrees to\nperform the Corrective Measures set forth in Section II below.\nII. Corrective Measures\n12. Pressure Restriction. On December 1, 2018, Respondent agreed to a\npressure restriction of 80% of the operating pressure at the time of the accident on the\nentire Affected Pipeline. Respondent provided PHMSA information regarding nine\nsegments of the Affected Pipeline and the associated pressure reductions to accomplish the\n20% de-rate of the line pressure. Respondent shall maintain such pressure restriction until\nthe Director approves the removal or modification of the pressure restriction pursuant to\nParagraph 13 hereof.\n13. Removal of Pressure Restriction. The Director may approve the removal\nor modification of the pressure restriction upon a written request from Respondent\ndemonstrating that restoring the Affected Pipeline to its pre-failure operating pressure is\n\n\n\njustified based on a reliable engineering analysis pursuant to Respondent’s applicable\nprocedures showing that the pressure increase is safe considering the identified risk\ncondition and all known defects, anomalies, and operating parameters of the pipeline. The\nDirector may also consider a demonstration that temporary mitigative and preventive\nmeasures are implemented prior to and during the temporary removal or modification of\nthe pressure restriction. The Director’s determination will be based upon the identified\nrisk condition and evidence of the analyses and/or measures taken by Respondent.\n14. Mechanical and Metallurgical Testing. In accordance with the Notice, on\nFebruary 12, 2019, Respondent delivered to the Director a report of metallurgical testing\nof the pipe joint that failed, entitled Evaluation of an ERW Seam Failure from Phillips\n66’s Line O 10-inch Pipeline, prepared by Kiefner and Associates, Inc., and dated\nFebruary 11, 2019 (the Metallurgical Report). Prior to finalization of the Metallurgical\nReport, Respondent caused Kiefner and Associates to provide a draft of the report to\nPHMSA simultaneously with provision of the draft report to Respondent. Respondent\nmaintained chain of custody documentation for transporting the pipe to the Kiefner and\nAssociates laboratory, and the metallurgical analysis followed established PHMSA\ntesting protocol. Arrangements were made to provide the opportunity for PHMSA\nrepresentatives to observe the metallurgical testing. Respondent has caused its ILI tool\nvendor to examine data from a 2014 crack ILI tool run to identify the anomaly that failed\n(the Failure Anomaly) and to more precisely examine the characteristics of that anomaly\nas indicated by that ILI tool data. Respondent delivered to the Director a report of\nmetallurgical examination of certain ILI tool indications on four pipe joints which were\nremoved from the Affected Pipeline, entitled Evaluation of ILI Seam Anomalies from\nPhillips 66’s Line O 10-inch Pipeline, prepared by Kiefner and Associates, Inc. and dated\nJune 17, 2019. Prior to finalization of the report, Respondent delivered a draft of the\nreport, dated May 1, 2019, to PHMSA.\n15. Root Cause Failure Analysis. In accordance with the Notice, Respondent\nperformed a Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA), and a report of the RCFA was\nprovided to the Director on March 13, 2019. The RCFA documented a timeline of events\nrelating to the accident and included a pipeline history, a seam integrity assessment\nhistory, a failure history, results from the Metallurgical Report conclusions, contributing\nfactors, and action items.\n16. Remedial Work Plan. Within 45 days after this Agreement and Order is\nissued, Respondent will submit to the Director for approval, a written remedial work plan\n(RWP) that includes corrective measures. Once approved, the RWP shall automatically\nbecome incorporated into this Order. The RWP must include provisions to:\na. Include procedural, process or other engineering solutions to\nmanage the pressure cycling regime of the Affected Pipeline.\nb. Re-evaluate data collected from crack ILI tool runs performed on\n\n\n\nthe Affected Pipeline, to identify tool indications of anomalies that\nbear characteristics similar to the Failure Anomaly (the Similar\nIndications).\nc. Perform calibration digs of the Similar Indications. Upon\nexcavation of each Similar Indication, Respondent shall perform\nnon-destructive examination (NDE) of the Similar Indication and\ndetermine whether or not the subject Similar Indication meets\nrepair criteria. To the extent the characteristics of a given Similar\nIndication meets repair criteria, Respondent shall repair that\nSimilar Indication.\nd. Respondent shall implement any procedural revisions for the\ncontinuing long-term periodic testing and integrity verification\nmeasures to ensure the ongoing safe operation of the Affected\nPipeline as identified in 49 CFR 195.452 considering the results\nof the analyses, inspections, evaluations, and corrective measures\nundertaken pursuant to this safety order. Respondent will submit\nto the Director any procedural revisions.\n17. Schedule. The RWP must include a proposed timeline for completion of\nthe Corrective Measures required in Paragraph 16.\n18. Documentation. Respondent shall retain on file documentation of\ncompliance with the RWP. Respondent shall provide copies of such documentation to\nthe Director upon written request.\n19. Quarterly Reporting. Respondent must submit quarterly reports to the\nDirector, due not more than 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, which (1)\ninclude available data and results of the testing and evaluation required by the Agreement\nand Order, and (2) describe the progress of the repairs and other corrective measures being\nundertaken.\n20. Appeals. Respondent may appeal any decision of the Director to the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. Decisions of the Associate Administrator\nshall be final.\n21. Documentation of Costs. It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent\nmaintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nSafety Order and submit the total to Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions\nand other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n\n\nIII. Approvals\n22. With respect to the submissions under this Agreement and Order requiring\nthe approval of the Director, the Director shall act promptly to: (a) approve, in whole or\npart, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specific conditions; (c) disapprove,\nin whole or in part, the submission, directing that Phillips 66 modify the submission; or\n(d) any combination of the above. In the event of approval or approval upon conditions,\nRespondent will proceed to take all action required by the submission, as approved or\nconditioned by the Director, subject to Respondent’s right to invoke the dispute resolution\nprocedures in Section V with respect to any conditions specified by Director. If the\nDirector conditions or disapproves all or any portion of a submission, the Director shall\nin writing state with specificity the basis for the decision and Respondent will resubmit it\nto address the stated issues. If a resubmitted item is disapproved in whole or in part, the\nDirector may again require Respondent to address the stated issues in accordance with the\nforegoing procedure, or the Parties may proceed to dispute resolution pursuant to Section\nV below.\nIV. Extensions of Time\n23. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of\nthe terms of this Agreement and Order upon a written request submitted at least 15\ncalendar days prior to a stated deadline, demonstrating good cause for an extension. The\nDirector shall respond within a reasonable time to any request for extension of time.\nV. Dispute Resolution\n24. The Director and Phillips 66 will attempt to resolve informally any\ndisputes arising under this Agreement and Order, including but not limited to any decision\nof the Director. The Director and Phillips 66 will first confer in an effort to resolve any\ndispute. If the Director and Phillips 66 are unable to resolve informally the dispute within\n15 business days of notice by Respondent, Phillips 66 may request in writing, within 10\nbusiness days of the end of said 15-day period, a written determination resolving the\ndispute by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Along with its\nrequest, Phillips 66 will provide the Associate Administrator with all information Phillips\n66 believes is relevant to the dispute. If the request is submitted as provided herein, the\nAssociate Administrator will promptly issue a written determination that shall be final.\nDecisions of the Associate Administrator will constitute final agency action, and are\nsubject to judicial appeal. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of\nmatters placed in dispute shall not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for\ncompletion of any Corrective Measures to be performed under this Agreement and Order\nduring the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the Director or\nthe Associate Administrator in writing.\n\n\n\nVI. Enforcement\n25. Respondent’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement and Order may be\nenforced by PHMSA pursuant to enforcement authorities available to the PHMSA under\n49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190. All deadlines set forth or referenced\nin this Agreement and Order will be automatically incorporated into this Agreement and\nOrder and, subject to Respondent’s right to request an extension of time under Section IV\nand modify this Agreement under Section IX, are enforceable in the same manner.\nVII. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure\n26. Except as otherwise provided herein, Phillips 66 agrees to maintain records\ndemonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement and Order for a period\nof five years following notice by Respondent of the completion of all work to be\nperformed.\n27. For any reports, plans, or other deliverables required to be submitted to\nPHMSA pursuant to this Agreement and Order, Respondent may assert a claim of\nbusiness confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by\nPHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA\npursuant to this Agreement and Order in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7 and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.343. Respondent must mark the claim of confidentiality in writing on each page,\nand include a statement specifying the grounds for each claim of confidentially. PHMSA\nwill determine the release of any information submitted pursuant to this Agreement and\nOrder in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §\n552, DOT and PHMSA policies, and other applicable statutes, regulations and Executive\nOrders.\nVIII. Effective Date\n28. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the later date on which this\nAgreement and Order is fully executed by each of the Parties. Unless specified to the\ncontrary, all deadlines for actions required by this Agreement and Order run from the\nEffective Date.\nIX. Modification\n29. The terms of this Agreement and Order may be modified by mutual\nagreement of the Parties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by both\nParties.\nX. Termination\n30. This Agreement and Order terminates upon completion of the Corrective\n\n\n\nMeasures and other actions within Section II, as determined by the Director. Phillips 66\nmay request written confirmation from PHMSA when this Agreement and Order is\nterminated and the Director will provide such confirmation within a reasonable time.\nNothing in this Agreement and Order prevents Respondent from completing any of the\nobligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement and Order.\nXI. Ratification\n31. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully\nauthorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Order and to\nexecute and legally bind such party to this document.\n32. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Agreement and\nOrder.\nFor Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC (Respondent):\n___________________________________\nTodd Denton\nPresident\n________________________\nDate\nFor PHMSA:\n___________________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n________________________\nDate\n\n420185029S_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12112018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 11, 2018\nTodd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\n2331 City West Blvd.\nHouston, Texas 77042\nCPF 4-2018-5029S\nDear Mr. Denton:\nEnclosed is a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) issued in the above-referenced case.\nThe Notice proposes that you take certain measures with respect to Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC’s,\nLO-01, “Line-O,” Pipeline to ensure pipeline safety. Your options for responding are set forth in\nthe Notice. Your receipt of the Notice constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. §\n190.5.\nWe look forward to a successful resolution to ensure pipeline safety. Please direct any\nquestions on this matter to me at (713) 272-2847.\nSincerely,\nMary McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Notice of Proposed Safety Order\nCc: Mr. Alan K. Mayberry, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, OPS\nMs. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Jeff Blatchford, DOT Coordinator, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\n\n\n\n2\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nSouthwest Region\n8701 S. Gessner Road\nHouston, Texas 77074\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2018-5029S\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent )\n____________________________________)\nNOTICE OF PROPOSED SAFETY ORDER\nBackground and Purpose\nPursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) has initiated an investigation of the safety of Phillips 66\nPipeline, LLC’s (Phillips 66 or Respondent), LO-01 or “Line-O,” Pipeline in Elk, City,\nOklahoma.\nAs a result of the investigation, it appears that a condition exists on your pipeline facility that poses\na pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property or the environment. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117(l), PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order, notifying you of the preliminary\nfindings of the investigation, and proposing that you take measures to ensure that the public,\nproperty, and the environment are protected from the potential risk.\nFor the purposes of this Notice, the term “affected pipeline” means the entire 272-mile length of\nthe LO-01 Pipeline.\nPreliminary Findings\n• The LO-01, or “Line-O,” Pipeline is a 10-inch, steel pipeline that extends 272 miles,\nbeginning in Cushing, Oklahoma and ending in Borger, Texas.\n• The LO-01 Pipeline was manufactured in 1951 and has a low-frequency, electric\nresistance welded (LF-ERW), longitudinal pipe seam along the entire pipeline.\n\n\n\n3\n• Pipelines manufactured before 1971 with LF-ERW, longitudinal seams are susceptible\nto failure due to multiple deficiencies created by the welding process including, cold-\nweld, hook cracks that are enlarged by fatigue, other manufacturing defects enlarged by\nfatigue, selective seam weld corrosion, hydrogen stress cracking, sulfide stress cracking,\nand stress corrosion cracking. The in-service failure of the LF-ERW, longitudinal seam\non the LO-01 Pipeline indicates there is a condition posing a pipeline integrity risk to\npublic safety, property and the environment.\n• On November 29, 2018, at 6:53pm CT, Phillips 66 notified the National Response Center\n(NRC) of a release of crude oil from its LO-01 Pipeline in Elk City, Oklahoma.1 The\nrelease occurred on the segment of the LO-01 Pipeline that begins in Elk City and ends\nat the Oklahoma State line. PHMSA deployed two investigators to the scene of the\naccident and PHMSA personnel were on-site from November 30, 2018 through\nDecember 2, 2018.\n• The apparent cause of the release was a failure of the LF-ERW, longitudinal seam. The\nrupture of the seam was approximately 28.5 inches in length and 1.5-inches wide at the\nwidest point.2 It is estimated that approximately 672 barrels of crude oil were released\nas a result of the seam failure.\n• The LO-01 Pipeline transports crude oil and is operated on a continuous basis. The\nmaximum operating pressure (MOP) of the Elk City to State line segment of the LO-01\nPipeline is approximately 1125 psig.\n• The LO-01 Pipeline has a coal tar coating.\n• The LO-01 Pipeline passes through mostly rural areas land, but does closely pass the\nOklahoma cities of Guthrie, Cashion, Clinton and Elk City, as well as the Texas cities of\nWheeler, Pampa and Borger. There are ten pump stations located along the LO-01\nPipeline. The area where the accident occurred in Elk City, Oklahoma is an agricultural\narea that is slightly sloped with a terraced field.\n• The accident site is not located in an Unusually Sensitive Area (USA), but the accident\noccurred on a segment that could affect high consequence area (HCA).\n• The nearest HCA is located approximately 0.38 miles away at the city limit of Elk City,\nOklahoma. Phillips 66 has reported that 127.41 miles of the LO-01 Pipeline are located\nwithin an HCA.\n• The entire LO-01 Pipeline has the pre-1970, LF-ERW, longitudinal seam. This condition\ncould impair the serviceability of the entire pipeline if left unaddressed.\n1 National Response Center Report, No. 1231662, November 29, 2018.\n2 See Exhibit 1.\n\n\n\n4\n• Phillips 66 performed a hydrostatic test on the section of the LO-01 Pipeline from the\nElk City Station to the Oklahoma State line on June 18, 2006. That test revealed no leak\nindications or ruptures at a minimum test pressure of 1499 psig. On June 13, 2014,\nPhillips 66 ran a Rosen UT-C, in-line inspection tool on the LO-01 Pipeline starting in\nClinton, Oklahoma and ending at the Oklahoma State line. That test found 82 anomalies\nthat were designated as immediate repair conditions. Of the 82 anomalies, 80 were\nidentified as cracks with a calculated burst pressure that was less than the Pipeline\nsegment’s 1125 psig MOP. The two remaining anomalies were cracks with no upper\nbound, meaning the size crack could not be accurately determined beyond a certain\ndimension. Phillips 66 reported that all anomalies were repaired in accordance Phillips\n66’s repair procedures. Finally, on July 1, 2016, Phillips 66 ran a T.D. Williamson\ncombination magnetic flux leakage/deformation tool on the same section of pipe tested\nin June 2014. That test found five topside dents with metal loss, which were identified\nas immediate repair conditions. The test also found two 180-day conditions, one dent\nassociated with the longitudinal seam and one top-side dent greater than 2% wall loss.\nPhillips 66 reported that these anomalies were repaired in accordance Phillips 66’s repair\nprocedures.\n• On December 1, 2018, Phillips 66 repaired the pipe segment that ruptured on November\n29th. Three joints of pipe were cold cut and removed. Three new joints of pre-tested\npipe were then welded in place. Phillips 66 conducted a two-hour standup test on\nDecember 2, 2018. Phillips 66 also provided PHMSA with a repair plan with associated\nprocedures to address the repairs performed along with a restart plan. The line returned\nto service on December 2nd at reduced pressure levels on each segment to coincide with\na 20% total pressure reduction on the LO-01 Pipeline.\nProposed Issuance of Safety Order\nSection 60117(l) of Title 49, United States Code, provides for the issuance of a safety order, after\nreasonable notice and the opportunity for a hearing, requiring corrective measures, which may\ninclude physical inspection, testing, repair, or other action, as appropriate. The basis for making\nthe determination that a pipeline facility has a condition or conditions that pose a pipeline integrity\nrisk to public safety, property, or the environment is set forth both in the above-referenced statute\nand 49 C.F.R. § 190.239, a copy of which is enclosed.\nAfter evaluating the foregoing preliminary findings of fact and considering the age of the pipe\ninvolved, the manufacturer, the hazardous nature of the product transported and the pressure\nrequired for transporting such product, the characteristics of the geographical areas where the\npipeline facility is located, and the likelihood that the conditions could worsen or develop on other\nareas of the pipeline and potentially impact its serviceability, it appears that the continued\noperation of the affected pipeline without corrective measures would pose a pipeline integrity risk\nto public safety, property, or the environment.\nAccordingly, PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order to notify Respondent of the\nproposed issuance of a safety order and to propose that Respondent take measures specified herein\nto address the potential risk.\n\n\n\n5\nResponse to this Notice\nIn accordance with § 190.239, you have 30 days following receipt of this Notice to submit a\nwritten response to the official who issued the Notice. If you do not respond within 30 days, this\nconstitutes a waiver of your right to contest this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to\nyou and to issue a Safety Order. In your response, you may notify that official that you intend to\ncomply with the terms of the Notice as proposed, or you may request that an informal\nconsultation be scheduled (you will also have the opportunity to request an administrative\nhearing before a safety order is issued). Informal consultation provides you with the opportunity\nto explain the circumstances associated with the risk conditions alleged in the notice and, as\nappropriate, to present a proposal for a work plan or other remedial measures, without prejudice\nto your position in any subsequent hearing. If you and PHMSA agree within 30 days of informal\nconsultation on a plan and schedule for you to address each identified risk condition, we may\nenter into a written consent agreement (PHMSA would then issue an administrative consent\norder incorporating the terms of the agreement). If a consent agreement is not reached, or if you\nhave elected not to request informal consultation, you may request an administrative hearing in\nwriting within 30 days following receipt of the Notice or within 10 days following the\nconclusion of an informal consultation that did not result in a consent agreement, as applicable.\nFollowing a hearing, if the Associate Administrator finds the facility to have a condition that\nposes a pipeline integrity risk to the public, property, or the environment in accordance with §\n190.239, the Associate Administrator may issue a safety order\nBe advised 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).\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2018-5029S and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nProposed Corrective Measures\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117(l) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.239, PHMSA proposes to issue to Phillips\n66 a safety order incorporating the following remedial requirements with respect to the LO-01\nPipeline:\n1. Pressure Restriction. On December 1, 2018, Phillips 66 agreed to a pressure restriction\nof 80% of the operating pressure at the time of the accident on the entire LO-01 Pipeline.\nPhillips 66 provided PHMSA information regarding nine segments of the LO-01 Pipeline\nand the associated pressure reductions to accomplish the 20% de-rate of the line pressure.\n\n\n\n6\n2. 3. 4. 5. Removal of Pressure Restriction. The Director may allow the removal or modification\nof the pressure restriction upon a written request from Respondent demonstrating that\nrestoring the pipeline to its pre-failure operating pressure is justified based on a reliable\nengineering analysis showing that the pressure increase is safe considering all known\ndefects, anomalies, and operating parameters of the pipeline. The Director may also\nconsider a demonstration that temporary mitigative and preventive measures are\nimplemented prior to and during the temporary removal or modification of the pressure\nrestriction. The Director’s determination will be based on the cause of the failure and\nevidence of the analyses and measures taken.\nMechanical and Metallurgical Testing. Within 60 days of receipt of this safety order,\nRespondent must complete mechanical and metallurgical testing and failure analysis of\nthe failed pipe and the two joints removed from the pipeline, including an analysis of soil\nsamples and any foreign materials. Testing and analysis requirements are as follows:\na. Document the chain-of-custody when handling and transporting the failed pipe\nsection and other evidence from the failure site.\nb. c. Utilize the testing protocol provided by PHMSA.\nPrior to beginning the mechanical and metallurgical testing, provide the Director\nwith the scheduled date, time, and location of the testing to allow for an OPS\nrepresentative to witness the testing.\nd. Ensure the testing laboratory distributes all reports whether draft or final in their\nentirety to the Director at the same time they are made available to Respondent.\nRoot Cause Failure Analysis. Within 120 days following receipt of this safety order,\ncomplete a root cause failure analysis (RCFA) and submit a final report of this RCFA to\nthe Director. The RCFA must document the decision making process and all factors\ncontributing to the failure. The final report must include findings and lessons learned.\nThe RCFA must also include a discussion of whether the findings and lessons learned\nare applicable to other locations within Phillip 66’s pipeline system.\nRemedial Work Plan. Within 45 days following receipt of the final report from the\nmetallurgical testing laboratory, Respondent must submit a Remedial Work Plan (RWP)\nto the Director for approval. The Director may approve the RWP incrementally without\napproving the entire RWP. Once approved by the Director, the RWP will be incorporated\nby reference in this safety order.\na. The RWP must specify the tests, inspections, assessments, evaluations, and\nremedial measures Respondent will use to verify the integrity of the LO-01\nPipeline. It must address all known or suspected factors and causes of the failure.\nRespondent should consider both the risk and consequence of another failure to\ndevelop a prioritized schedule for RWP related work along the entire 272-mile\npipeline.\nb. The RWP must include a procedure or process to:\ni. Gather all data necessary to review the failure history (in-service and\npressure test failures) of the LO-01 Pipeline and to prepare a written\nsummary containing all the available information such as the locations,\ndates, and causes of leaks and failures.\n\n\n\n7\n6. ii. Integrate the results of the metallurgical testing, root cause failure analysis,\nand other corrective actions required by the safety order with all relevant\npre-existing operational and assessment data for the LO-01 Pipeline. Pre-\nexisting operational data includes, but is not limited to, construction,\noperations, maintenance, testing, repairs, and prior metallurgical analyses.\nPre-existing assessment data includes, but is not limited to, in-line\ninspection (ILI) tool runs, hydrostatic pressure testing, direct assessments,\nclose interval surveys, and DCVG/ACVG surveys.\niii. Determine if conditions similar to those contributing to the failure are likely\nto exist elsewhere on the pipeline.\niv. Conduct additional field tests, inspections, assessments, and/or evaluations\nto determine whether, and to what extent, the conditions associated with the\nfailure, and other failures from the failure history, or any other integrity\nthreats are present elsewhere the LO-01 Pipeline. At a minimum, this\nprocess must consider all failure causes and specify the use of one or more\nof the following:\n1. Inline inspection tools that are technically appropriate for assessing\nthe pipeline system based on the cause of the failure and that can\nreliably detect and identify anomalies,\n2. Hydrostatic pressure testing,\n3. Close-interval surveys,\n4. Cathodic protection surveys, to include interference surveys in\ncoordination with other utilities (e.g. underground utilities,\noverhead power lines, etc.) in the area,\n5. Coating surveys,\n6. Stress corrosion cracking surveys,\n7. Selective seam corrosion surveys; and,\n8. Other tests, inspections, assessments, and evaluations appropriate\nfor the failure causes.\nc. Describe the inspection and repair criteria Respondent will use to prioritize,\nexcavate, evaluate, and repair anomalies, imperfections, and other identified\nintegrity threats. Include a description of how any defects will be graded and a\nschedule for repairs or replacement.\nd. Based on the known history and condition of the pipeline, describe the methods\nRespondent will use to repair, replace, or take other corrective measures to\nremediate the conditions associated with the failure, and to address other known\nintegrity threats.\ne. Implement continuing long-term periodic testing and integrity verification\nmeasures to ensure the ongoing safe operation of the LO-01 Pipeline considering\nthe results of the analyses, inspections, evaluations, and corrective measures\nundertaken pursuant to this safety order.\nf. Include a proposed schedule for completion of the RWP.\nRevise the remedial work plan as necessary to incorporate new information obtained\nduring the failure investigation, evaluations and associated remedial activities to\n\n\n\n8\n7. 8. 9. 10. incorporate results of actions undertaken pursuant to the safety order. Submit any such\nplan revisions to the Director for prior approval.\nSubmit quarterly reports to the Director that: (1) include available data and results of the\ntesting and evaluations required by the safety order; a","truncated":true,"body_characters":43051}