{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520135011","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":"2013-08-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.573(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520135011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520135011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520135011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520135011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.573(a)(1). The case was opened on 2013-08-23 and is reported as closed as of 2013-12-03. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520135011_Final Order_12032013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520135011/520135011_Final%20Order_12032013.pdf\n\n520135011_Final Order_12032013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520135011/520135011_Final%20Order_12032013_text.pdf\n\n520135011_NOPV PCO_08232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520135011/520135011_NOPV%20PCO_08232013.pdf\n\n520135011_NOPV PCO_08232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520135011/520135011_NOPV%20PCO_08232013_text.pdf\n\n520135011_Operator Response_10232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520135011/520135011_Operator%20Response_10232013.pdf\n\n520135011_Final Order_12032013_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 3, 2013\nMr. Todd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC\n3010 Briarpark Drive\nHouston, Texas 77042\nRe: CPF No. 5-2013-5011\nDear Mr. Denton:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, has completed the actions specified in the\nNotice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Todd Tullio, Regulatory Compliance Manager, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC\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. 5-2013-5011\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 26-30, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Washington\nUtilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC (Phillips\nor Respondent) in Spokane, Washington. Phillips owns and operates more than 12,000 miles of\npipelines throughout the United States and transports both raw and finished petroleum products,\nincluding crude oil, propane and refined products.1 The WUTC inspection covered the Spokane\nto Moses Lake segment of the Phillips 66 (P66) Yellowstone Pipe Line in Spokane, Washington.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 23, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Philliips had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct\nthe alleged violation. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible enforcement action.\nPhillips responded to the Notice by letters dated October 1, 2013, and October 23, 2013\n(collectively, Response). The company did not contest the allegation of violation but provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, website, available at http://www.phillips66pipeline.com/EN/Pages/index.aspx (last\naccessed November 4, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Phillips did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at\nthose intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of\nbare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once\nevery 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct\ntests on cathodically-protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Phillips failed to test several cathodic\nprotection test stations on its Spokane to Moses Lake pipeline segment between 2009 and 2012.\nThe Notice further alleged that, as a result of this lack of testing, Respondent failed to adequately\nmonitor the pipeline to determine whether sufficient cathodic protection existed.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct\ntests on cathodically-protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for a violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director\nindicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance\norder:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 1), Respondent has either\nread each test station that was not read between 2009 and 2012, or otherwise\ndetermined that the level of cathodic protection is adequate at the unmonitored\nportion of the system. Respondent has also amended its cathodic testing\nprocedures (MPR-6018) to ensure that the test stations used to determine adequate\n\n\n\n3\ncathodic protection are read annually. Respondent has submitted documentation\nof these actions.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, 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:\n1. 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow\nits own written procedures for valve maintenance. Specifically, the failure\nof Respondent’s employees to follow procedure MPR-6005 during the\nvalve maintenance survey conducted in October 2012, which required the\noperator to contact its control center and record such contact information\nduring testing.\n2. 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow\nits own written procedures for contacts with emergency officials.\nSpecifically, the failure of Respondent’s employees to follow procedure\nMPR-2301, which required employees to record contacts with emergency\nofficials on form MPA 2830-A.\nIf OPS finds a violation of these provisions in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may\nbe subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8364}