{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52022034WL","title":"PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-04-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.465(c), 192.605(a), 192.615(c)(1), 192.706(a), 192.706(b), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52022034wl.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52022034wl.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52022034wl","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52022034WL","body":"Warning Letter involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(c),  192.605(a),  192.615(c)(1),  192.706(a),  192.706(b),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2022-04-25 and is reported as closed as of 2022-04-25. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52022034WL_Warning Letter_04252022_(21-231738).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022034WL/52022034WL_Warning%20Letter_04252022_(21-231738).pdf\n\n52022034WL_Warning Letter_04252022_(21-231738)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022034WL/52022034WL_Warning%20Letter_04252022_(21-231738)_text.pdf\n\n52022034WL_Warning Letter_04252022_(21-231738)_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nVIA E-MAIL TO MR. TODD DENTON\nApril 25, 2022\nMr. Todd Denton\nPresident\nPhillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\n3010 Briarpark Drive\nPWC-7109\nHouston, TX 77042\nCPF 5-2022-034-WL\nDear Mr. Denton:\nFrom October 4 through October 8, 2021, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, (U.S.C.)\ninspected Phillips 66’s California Gas Lines in San Obispo, California.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures\nfor handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThis manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\n\n\n\nPhillips 66 failed to follow their written procedure, identified as P66-MPR-9001 Inspection and\nTesting - Natural or Other Gas Pipeline Leakage Surveys, Rev. 7, effective date 11/06/2018, for\nconducting operations and maintenance activities.\nSection 5.3.6 states: “Leak detection equipment shall be calibrated prior to the start of the survey.\nCalibrate the instrument with calibration gas that is recommended for the gas being transported in the\npipelines being surveyed.”\nDuring the inspection, calibration records for the leak survey equipment could not be provided for\nany of the leak surveys performed from 2017 to October 2021.\n2. § 192.706 Transmission Lines: Leakage surveys.\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year. However, in the case of a transmission line\nwhich transports gas in conformity with § 192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage\nsurveys using leak detector equipment must be conducted –\n(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice\neach calendar year; and\n(b) In Class 4 locations, at intervals not exceeding 4 ½ months, but at least four\ntimes each calendar year.\nPhillips 66 failed to conduct leak surveys pursuant to the intervals required by § 192.706.\nSpecifically, during the inspection, PHMSA reviewed leak survey records that indicated the intervals\nwere exceeded for the following locations:\n Middlewater Gas Line: leak surveys performed on December 6, 2016, and September 3,\n2021.\n Junction Station Gas Line: leak surveys performed on April 22, 2016, and April 26, 2021.\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must\nbe inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year.\nPhillips 66 failed to conduct valve inspections on the Middlewater Station valve (NG-14) from the\nSoCal tie-in into the station. This valve is the only valve on the pipeline system that could be used as\nan emergency valve to shut off gas from the tie-in, and therefore must be inspected and partially\noperated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but least once each calendar year. During the\ninspection, Phillips 66 could not provide any records for annual valve inspections for NG-14.1\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a)…\n(c) Each reverse current switch, each diode, and each interference bond whose failure\nwould jeopardize structure protection must be electrically checked for proper\n1 See 192.709(c) (requiring operators to keep a record of each test required by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at\nleast 5 years or until the next test is completed, whichever is longer).\n2\n3. 4.\n\n\n\nperformance six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 21∕2 months.\nEach other interference bond must be checked at least once each calendar year, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nPhillips 66 failed to electrically check for proper performance each interference bond whose failure\nwould jeopardize structure protection at the requisite intervals. Specifically, Phillips 66 failed to\nconduct tests associated with the critical bond located on the NG-27 line at Lemon Grove, identified\nas test station 3-38-05, six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, to\ncheck for proper performance. This critical bond connects the NG-27 and NG-24 lines, providing\nstructure protection to NG-24.\nDuring the inspection, Phillips 66 informed PHMSA that they did not conduct the requisite testing\nwhile the line was idled. However, during this time, PHMSA did not recognize “idle” status.\nPHMSA Advisory Bulletin 2016-05. The regulations consider pipelines to be either active and fully\nsubject to all parts of the safety regulations or abandoned.2 Phillips 66 had not physically abandoned\nthe pipeline and was therefore required to maintain cathodic protection. Furthermore, the critical\nbond at this location was the only way Phillips 66 could protect the NG-24 line, regardless of its\nserviceability.\n5. § 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a)…\n(c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and\nother public officials to:\n(1) Learn the responsibility and resources of each government organization that may\nrespond to a gas pipeline emergency;\nPhillips 66 failed to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public\nofficials to achieve the objectives of § 192.615(c)(1)-(4). During the inspection, Phillips 66 provided\nPHMSA with attendance records for Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) meetings. These\nrecords, however, only indicated the operator attended the meetings; the sign-in sheets do not have\ndates or agendas associated with them. As a result, the records fail to demonstrate if the operator has\nachieved the objectives set forth in § 192.615(c)(1)-(4).3 Furthermore, Phillips 66 is encouraged to\nconsider the guidance set forth in PHMSA Advisory Bulletin 05-03. For example, emergency\nresponse planning should include liaison with owners of electric and other utilities in the vicinity of\nthe pipeline system in order to pre-plan and coordinate response to pipeline emergencies.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$239,142 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,391,142 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after May 3, 2021 and before March 21, 2022, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a\nmaximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after January\n11, 2021 and before May 3, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $222,504 per violation per\n2 PHMSA will accept deferral of certain activities for purged but active pipelines, but operators must notify PHMSA\nin advance of any deferred actions.\n3 For example, PHMSA was unable to confirm whether Phillips 66 learned the responsibility and resources of each\ngovernment organization that may respond to a gas pipeline emergency, or whether they had planned how they and\nofficials would engage in mutual assistance to minimize hazards to life or property.\n3\n\n\n\nday the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for a related series of violations. For\nviolation occurring on or after July 31, 2019 and before January 11, 2021, the maximum penalty may\nnot exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for\na related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July\n31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before\nNovember 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time.\nWe advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Phillips 66\nPipeline, LLC being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to CPF\n5-2022-034-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original\ndocument you must 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).\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 D. Fehling (#21-231738)\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":10430}