{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520065017","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":"2006-03-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404, 195.440, 195.442(c)(1), 195.52(b)(6), 195.54(b), 195.575, 195.577(a), 195.583(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520065017.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520065017.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520065017","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520065017","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404,  195.440,  195.442(c)(1),  195.52(b)(6),  195.54(b),  195.575,  195.577(a),  195.583(c). The case was opened on 2006-03-23 and is reported as closed as of 2009-11-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520065017_FinalOrder_11162009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520065017/520065017_FinalOrder_11162009.pdf\n\n520065017_FinalOrder_11162009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520065017/520065017_FinalOrder_11162009_text.pdf\n\n520065017_FinalOrder_11162009_text.pdf\n\nNOV 16 2009\nMs. Meg A. Yaege\nPresident\nConocoPhillips Pipeline Company\n600 North Dairy Ashford, TA 2010\nHouston, TX 77079\nRe: CPF No. 5-2006-5017\nDear Ms. Yaege:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of the\nallegations of probable violation, makes findings of violation, and finds that the ConocoPhillips\nPipeline Company has completed the actions required to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument 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: Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA/OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5104]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nConocoPhillips Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 5-2006-5017\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween September 19-30, 2005, and October 17-28, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities of\nConocoPhillips Pipeline Company (CPPL or Respondent) at its Glacier and Yellowstone\npipeline facilities in Montana. PHMSA inspectors also reviewed the records located in Billings,\nCutbank, Helena, and Missoula, Montana and Spokane, Washington. CPPL owns and operates\nthe Glacier Pipeline which runs from the Canadian border to Billings, Montana and the\nYellowstone Pipeline which is located between Billings, Montana and the Idaho/Washington\nborder. CPPL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips. CPPL operates more than\n11,000 miles of pipelines and more than 60 storage terminals in the United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to CPPL, by\nletter dated March 23, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CPPL had\ncommitted violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed certain corrective measures. The\nNotice also warned the company to take appropriate corrective action for additional probable\nviolations of Part 195 or be subject to future enforcement action.\nCPPL responded to the Notice by letters dated April 24, 2006, May 5, 2006, and May 12, 2006\n(collectively, Response). CPPL contested two of the alleged violations and described certain\ncorrective actions it planned to implement. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that CPPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities:\n(i) Breakout tanks;\n(ii) Pump stations;\n(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;\n(iv) Pipeline valves;\n(v) Facilities to which § 195.402(c)(9) applies;\n(vi) Rights-of-way; and\n(vii) Safety devices to which § 195.428 applies.\n(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities,\nand foreign pipelines.\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\n(4) The diameter, grade, type and nominal wall thickness of all\npipe….\nThe Notice alleged that CPPL violated § 195.404 by failing to keep its pipeline alignment sheets\nand strip maps current. During the audit, the inspector discovered handwritten notes on an\nalignment sheet for the Glacier Pipeline reflecting a pipeline replacement from 2744+52 to\nstation 2094+19 that occurred in 1992. In its Response, CPPL stated the mapping department\nwas in the process of revising the alignment sheets at the time of the PHMSA inspection and\ntherefore the inspector was shown the redline versions. After the inspection, CPPL finalized the\nalignment sheets and provided them to PHMSA by letter dated May 5, 2006. Accordingly, upon\nconsideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404 by\nfailing to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that CPPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c)(1), which states:\n§ 195.442 Damage Prevention Program.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each operator\nof a buried pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section, a\nwritten program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation\nactivities….\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must, at a minimum:\n(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who normally\nengage in excavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is\nlocated….\nThe Notice alleged that CPPL violated § 195.442(c)(1) by failing to keep a current list of\nindividuals involved in excavation activities near the Yellowstone Pipeline Missoula area. In its\nResponse, CPPL acknowledged that it was in the process of implementing its excavation\nawareness program at the time of the inspection. CPPL has since provided OPS with a list of\nexcavators whom were contacted by CPPL by a mass mailing during the 4th quarter 2005. Upon\n\n\n\n3\nconsideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c)(1) by\nfailing to have a complete damage prevention program in effect at the time of the inspection.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that CPPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575, which states:\n§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what\ninspections, tests, and safeguards are required?\n(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline\nfrom other metallic structures, unless you electrically interconnect and\ncathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as a single unit….\nThe Notice alleged that CPPL violated § 195.575 by failing to electrically isolate each buried or\nsubmerged pipeline from other metallic structures. Cathodic protection monitoring readings on\nthe Missoula Montana Rail Link (MRL) spur line appeared to indicate that this line was not\nisolated from MRL’s rail yard facilities. In its Response, CPPL stated that it investigated and\nrepaired this issue the week after the PHMSA inspection. Accordingly, upon consideration of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575 by failing to electrically\nisolate each buried pipeline from metallic structures.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that CPPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577, which states:\n§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?\n(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program\nto identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such\ncurrents….\nThe Notice alleged that CPPL violated § 195.577 by failing to investigate and minimize stray\ncurrents. Specifically, CPPL’s cathodic protection records indicated interference on the Helena\nto Great Falls pipeline between test stations located at 7th Avenue (MP 79.2) and 3rd Avenue\nNorth (MP 79.3). CPPL was required to determine whether current from the adjacent Sinclair\nGas station’s underground tank cathodic protection system was creating a detrimental effect on\nthe Great Falls pipeline. After the inspection, CPPL acknowledged the problem and installed\ntwo conduit pipes and test stations as well as two anodes. CPPL completed this corrective action\nduring the week of April 17, 2006, and stated that it will continue to monitor cathodic protection\nlevels in this area to ensure that stray currents do not detrimentally affect the system.\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.577(a) by failing to identify and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF PROBABLE VIOLATIONS\nItem 1 of the Notice alleged that CPPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52, by failing to file a\ntelephonic notice of the release of crude oil which occurred on the Glacier Pipeline in Laurel,\n\n\n\n4\nMontana. This type of telephonic notice is required “at the earliest practicable moment\nfollowing discovery of a release of the hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide transported resulting\nin an event described in § 195.50…”1 These trigger events include any failure that caused\nestimated property damage exceeding $50,000.2\nHowever, CPPL maintained that it was not required to give telephonic notice since the estimated\ncosts associated with the crude oil spill did not exceed the $50,000 threshold. CPPL clarified in\nits Response that the estimated cost of the incident did not exceed $50,000. In fact, according to\nCPPL, the actual costs associated with the crude oil spill amounted to $41,500. CPPL incurred\nan additional $17,000 in clean up efforts associated with an area contaminated by diesel fuel\nfrom the adjacent truck repair shop. CPPL stated that it had volunteered to clean up this area\nupon discovery of it after the crude oil release. Upon consideration of the evidence, I find that\nthe record does not contain a sufficient basis for this probable violation. Therefore, this item is\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2 of the Notice alleged that CPPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b), by failing to file a\nsupplemental accident report within thirty days reflecting the additional costs associated with the\nGlacier Pipeline crude oil spill. Operators are required to file accident reports for any reportable\naccident under the parameters set forth in § 195.50. An operator must also file a supplemental\nreport within thirty days of receiving any changes to the information initially reported. In its\nResponse, CPPL confirmed that it filed the initial report on January 21, 2005, within 30 days of\nthe incident. CPPL stated in its Response that it neglected to file the supplemental report at the\nconsideration of the evidence, I find that the record does not contain a sufficient basis for this\nprobable violation. Therefore, this item is withdrawn.\ntime of the accident since the additional costs were unrelated to the crude oil spill.3 Upon\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 5, 6, and 7 in the Notice.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquid\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601.\nThe Director has indicated that CPPL took the following actions in response to the proposed\nCompliance Order:\n1. CPPL updated the alignment sheets for the Glacier pipeline system and the company\nprocedure for keeping maps current. CPPL provided documentation of these actions to the\nDirector, Western Region.\n2. CPPL submitted a current list of individuals who routinely excavate in the Missoula area.\n1 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a).\n2 Id.\n3 Respondent filed a Supplemental 7000-1 report on March 30, 2006.\n\n\n\n5\n3. Respondent provided evidence that it had electrically isolated the MRL spur line from all\nother MRL rail yard facilities.\n4. CPPL provided documentation that it had completed a stray current study and installed new\ntest stations and magnesium anodes to drain off stray currents. Further, CPPL provided evidence\nthat the existing stray currents have been mitigated.\nI find that these actions comply with the requirements of the Proposed Compliance Order and\ntherefore do not need to be included in this Final Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 4 and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440 (Notice Item 4) ─ CPPL’s alleged failure to establish a\ncontinuing educational program to enable the public, appropriate government\norganizations, and persons engaged in excavation-related activities to recognize a\nhazardous liquid or a carbon dioxide pipeline emergency; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583 (Notice Item 8) ─ CPPL’s alleged failure to provide\nprotection against atmospheric corrosion for Tank 1008 at the Billings Refinery.\nHaving considered all of the evidence in the record, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that\nthe probable violations listed in Items 4 and 8 occurred as of the date of the inspection. CPPL\nsubmitted additional information after the inspection indicating that it had conducted a series of\nmailings to stakeholders as part of its educational program and repainted the chime area on tank\n1008. In the event that OPS finds a violation for these items in a subsequent inspection, CPPL\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13959}