# BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 320105006  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2010-04-14

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b), 195.402(a), 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.52(a)(3).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b),  195.402(a),  195.505(a),  195.505(b),  195.52(a)(3). The case was opened on 2010-04-14 and is reported as closed as of 2016-06-02. Proposed civil penalty: $481,800. Assessed civil penalty: $402,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320105006_Closure Letter_06022016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Closure%20Letter_06022016.pdf

320105006_Closure Letter_06022016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Closure%20Letter_06022016_text.pdf

320105006_Decision on Petition_08012013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Decision%20on%20Petition_08012013.pdf

320105006_Decision on Petition_08012013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Decision%20on%20Petition_08012013_text.pdf

320105006_Final Order_11192012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Final%20Order_11192012.pdf

320105006_Final Order_11192012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Final%20Order_11192012_text.pdf

320105006_NOPV PCP PCO_04142010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04142010.pdf

320105006_NOPV PCP PCO_04142010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04142010_text.pdf

320105006_Operator Response to NOPV PCP PCO_05122010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Operator%20Response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05122010.pdf

320105006_Decision on Petition_08012013_text.pdf

AUGUST 1, 2013
Mr. Clark Smith
President & Chief Executive Officer
Buckeye Partners, LP
One Greenway Plaza
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77046
Re: CPF No. 3-2010-5006
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Buckeye Partners,
LP, in the above-referenced case. It denies your Petition and affirms the Final Order without
modification. Service of the Decision by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of
mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Robert E. Hogfoss, Esq., Counsel for Buckeye Partners, LP, Hunton & Williams,
Bank of America Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4100, Atlanta, Georgia
30308
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Buckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2010-5006
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On November 19, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Final Order in this case to Buckeye Partners, LP
(Buckeye or Petitioner), finding that Buckeye had committed five violations of the hazardous
liquid pipeline safety regulations and assessing a total civil penalty of $402,500.1 The Final
Order also required Buckeye to take certain corrective measures.
On December 10, 2012, Buckeye filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) seeking review
of Items #1 (timeliness of reporting a release), #4 (covered tasks), and #5 (training on a particular
covered task).2 Buckeye requested that PHMSA withdraw all three items or, in the alternative,
withdraw Item #1, convert Items #4 and 5 to either a Notice of Amendment or Warning Item,
and withdraw the associated civil penalty amounts. Buckeye did not dispute the other findings or
civil penalty assessments. It is noteworthy that pursuant to the pipeline safety regulations, “[t]he
filing of a petition…stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, unless the
Associate Administrator, OPS otherwise provides, the order, including any required corrective
action, is not stayed.”3 To date, Buckeye has not completed the compliance order included in the
November 19, 2012 Final Order.
1 The assessed civil penalty represented a $79,300 reduction from the proposed civil penalty amount.
2 Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, a petition must be received no later than 20 days after service of the final order
upon the respondent. Service is defined as being complete upon mailing. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. The Final Order
was mailed on or around November 19, 2012. The petition was received on December 11, 2012, 22 days after
service was completed. Buckeye stated in its Petition that the Final Order was received on November 26, 2012, and
therefore the December 10, 2012 Petition was timely. A review of the certified mail tracking database on the United
States Postal Service website confirms that the Final Order was indeed received on November 26, 2012, and
therefore the December 10, 2012 Petition is timely.
3 See 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(d).



2
Section 190.215 provides that a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a final order. It states that the Associate Administrator will not consider
repetitious information, arguments, or petitions, but may consider additional facts or arguments,
provided the respondent submits a valid reason why such information was not presented prior to
issuance of the final order. This rule allows a respondent to present information or arguments
that were unavailable or unknown prior to issuance of the final order, and gives PHMSA an
opportunity to correct any errors. The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in
part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, or may request additional
information, data, and comment as deemed appropriate.
Item 1: Finding of Violation of § 195.52
Petition
In the Final Order, PHMSA stated that Buckeye failed to provide telephonic notice to the
National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment, or within 1-2 hours,
following the company’s discovery of a release of 85 barrels of gasoline. Buckeye notified the
NRC 15 hours after the release occurred. PHMSA held that this was a violation of § 195.52. In
its Petition, Buckeye objected to this finding, arguing: (1) that the pipeline safety regulations do
not explicitly require an operator to report a release within 1-2 hours and therefore Item #1 is not
a violation; (2) that Buckeye did in fact report the release within 1-2 hours of discovering that the
release was reportable; and (3) that PHMSA’s rulemaking and enforcement cases have not
consistently supported the 1-2 hour interpretation.
Analysis
Petitions for reconsideration provide a vehicle for respondents to submit evidence not previously
available during the proceeding. As stated above, the Associate Administrator does not consider
repetitious information but may consider additional facts or arguments, provided that the
respondent submits a valid reason why such information was not presented prior to issuance of
the final order. Buckeye has not provided any additional documents or arguments in its Petition
that were not previously reviewed. All of the evidence and arguments that Buckeye relies on in
its Petition were previously submitted in the Response, Post-Hearing Brief, and at the hearing.
Buckeye’s argument that PHMSA cannot enforce its interpretation of “earliest practicable
moment” is unpersuasive. First, courts have held that an agency can formulate requirements
through enforcement decisions. An agency is “not precluded from announcing new principles in
an adjudicative proceeding.”4 Federal courts have held that an order issued in an adjudicatory
proceeding is not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure
Act.5 PHMSA can and does develop such interpretations in its enforcement decisions, just as
4 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 292-94 (1974) (finding that prior case law dictates that the agency is
"not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding and that the choice between
rulemaking and adjudication lies in the first instance within the [agency's] discretion") (citing SEC v. Chenery
Corp., 332 U.S. 194,202 (1947) and NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969)).
5 R/T 182, LLC v. FAA, 519 F.3d 307, 310 (6th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).



3
courts routinely apply statutes in civil and criminal enforcement decisions.6 Second, PHMSA
has consistently found that “earliest practicable moment” means between 1-2 hours. As
mentioned in the Final Order, this particular interpretation dates back to at least 1971, when the
agency stated that “in most cases this telephonic report can and should be made within one to
two hours after discovery…”7 Numerous enforcement cases have reinforced the agency’s
position on the reporting requirement.8 In the referenced cases, operators exceeded the required
time frame from just a few hours to more than 24. In addition, as discussed in the Final Order in
this proceeding, PHMSA has addressed the reporting requirements in a 1991 Alert Notice and a
2002 Advisory Bulletin.9
Contrary to Buckeye’s argument in its Response, Post-Hearing Brief, and now in the Petition, the
word “discovery” means discovery of the release itself, not the discovery or acknowledgment
that the accident meets the reporting requirements listed in the regulation. This point was
discussed at length in the Final Order on pages 2 and 3:
PHMSA has applied this interpretation in various enforcement actions and
found that “discovery” relates to the actual release, not to the realization that
an incident has resulted in circumstances (e.g. property damage) that renders
the release reportable.10
Furthermore, the rationale for this position was summarized in detail:
The reason for this interpretation is both logical and practical. In Enstar
Natural Gas Company, PHMSA stated that “[i]f the regulation were read to
6 See In the Matter of ANR Pipeline Company, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2007-1006 (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
7 See PI-71-011, located at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps.
8 In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Mexico, Final Order, CPF No. 44003 (March 2, 1998); In the
Matter of Hunt Refining Company, Final Order, CPF No. 2-2005-5002 (November 15, 2005); In the Matter of
Amerigas Propane, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 57702 (October 20, 2005); In the Matter of Chevron Pipe Line
Company, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2002-5013 (March 15, 2004); In the Matter of Belle Fourche Pipeline Company,
CPF No. 52514 (April 28, 1998).
9 See ALN 91-01 and ADB-02-04, located at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/advisory-bulletin. In its Petition,
Buckeye makes reference to the statutory mandates of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation
Act of 2011, signed into law on January 3, 2012. As noted in PHMSA’s January 30, 2013 Advisory Bulletin on
reporting requirements, PHMSA is required by this statute to issue a proposed rule to revise telephonic reporting
requirements to require notification not later than one hour following the time of confirmed discovery. See
“Pipeline Safety: Accident and Incident Notification Time Limit,” 78 Fed. Reg. 6402 (January 30, 2013) (citing The
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011). In referencing this new statutory mandate,
Buckeye attempts to argue that the agency should not enforce the existing reporting requirement until these new
regulations are issued. Obviously, the regulatory mandate created by the 2011 legislation does not affect the
Buckeye case, as the May 2005 release predates the statute by almost seven years. The existing reporting
requirements of 1-2 hours have been enforced for decades. The new mandate from Congress seeks to tighten the
reporting deadline even more than exists under the current regulation by requiring releases to be reported within one
hour and has no bearing on this case.
10 Final Order, at 3 (citing In the Matter of Enstar Natural Gas Company, CPF No. 52016 (May 14, 1997)).



4
mean at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of the cause of
the incident, the operator would never be required to report an incident until
the cause of the incident was definitely determined.”11 In addition, PHMSA
has stated that “[t]he delay to reporting caused by an operator waiting until it
definitely decides an event meets the reporting criteria would frustrate a
fundamental purpose of the regulation, which is to give OPS and other
agencies the earliest opportunity to assess whether an immediate response to
a pipeline incident is needed. Therefore, OPS requires pipeline operators to
report incidents to the NRC at the earliest practicable moment following
discovery of the incident, even if at the time of reporting there is some
question as to whether reporting will be required.”
There are also valid public safety reasons why an operator needs to make a
NRC report within 1-2 hours, including PHMSA’s need for immediate
information to determine whether the line or facility should be shut down.
PHMSA must evaluate the cause of a release as soon as possible, not after
the evidence is stale. 12
Enstar is not the only case that supports this position; PHMSA has issued numerous decisions in
agreement on this point. The agency stated In the Matter of the City of Richmond, Virginia, that
“…OPS interprets “discovery” to mean discovery of the incident itself, not discovery that the
reporting criteria have been met…[t]his gives OPS and other Federal and state agencies the
ability to assess whether an immediate response to a pipeline incident is needed.”13
In support of its Petition, Buckeye argued that there was no need for a federal response in this
case, so therefore the rationale that PHMSA needs operators to report releases within 1-2 hours
for public safety reasons did not apply here. The decision to roll out a federal response and
accident investigation is the agency’s decision, not the operator’s, and is necessitated upon
proper reporting of a release. If an operator waits 15 hours to report a release of 85 barrels, as
occurred in this case, then PHMSA is delayed by 15 hours from initiating its accident
investigation, should it find a need to do so.
In a similar argument, Buckeye contended that the agency’s past rulemaking and enforcement
cases contradict the Final Order here. Buckeye is referring to a final rule issued in 1994 that
increased the property damage threshold for reporting from $5,000 to $50,000.14 As discussed in
the rulemaking documents, this Final Rule acknowledged that there was confusion as to which
cost estimates operators were using to estimate property damage. The agency noted that
operators were frequently not including the fair market value of lost product when calculating
property damage and therefore the agency amended § 195.52(a)(3). In addition, the agency
decided that increasing the property damage threshold from $5,000 to $50,000 would match the
11 Enstar, at 2.
12 Final Order, at 3.
13 In the Matter of the City of Richmond, Virginia, CPF No. 1-2004-0006 (January 12, 2006)
14 “Regulatory Review: Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Safety Standards”, 59 FR 33388 (June 28,
1994).



5
existing Part 192 reporting requirement and eliminate the need to report minor accidents under
$5,000. I fail to see how these changes, 11 years prior to Buckeye’s accident, support its
position. The 2005 release that is the focus of this case involved 85 gallons of spilled product
and $60,100 in estimated property damage.
Buckeye also argued in its Petition that the cases used by PHMSA to support its finding in the
Final Order were inapposite because they involved natural gas operators; in addition, it argued
that PHMSA’s interpretation has not been applied consistently across enforcement cases. In its
Petition, Buckeye argued that the references to In the Matter of Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation, CPF No. 4-2001-1003 (May 5, 2005) and In the Matter of Enstar Natural Gas
Company, CPF No. 52016 (May 14, 1997) are inapposite because those matters involved the
violation of the natural gas reporting requirement at § 191.5 and not the hazardous liquid
reporting requirement at § 195.52. Although both cases happen to focus on natural gas pipeline
requirements, the language of both regulations is identical. They both require the reporting of
certain incidents or releases “at the earliest practicable moment following discovery.” Buckeye
also suggested that PHMSA has not enforced this provision consistently. I disagree. As noted
above, there have been numerous enforcement cases issued by PHMSA where both gas and
hazardous liquid operators failed to report a release within 1-2 hours.
Finally, the fact that the Central Region chose to issue a Notice four years after the inspection
does not bar the agency from taking such action. There is no question that this case was initiated
within the applicable five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2462.
Accordingly, I find no basis for a withdrawal of this violation or a reduction of the $10,500 civil
penalty assessed in the Final Order. This item stands as written in the Final Order.
Item 4: Finding of Violation of § 195.505(a)
In the Final Order, PHMSA found that Buckeye failed to include “all necessary covered tasks” in
its Operator Qualification (OQ) program, in particular, to include delivery operations at regulated
tank facilities. In its Petition, Buckeye objected to this finding of violation, stating that the
regulation is vague and PHMSA should be estopped from bringing a violation because this
specific facility had been previously inspected without any allegation of a § 195.505(a) violation.
Buckeye argued that this item should either be withdrawn or converted to a Notice of
Amendment or Warning Item.
Analysis
Buckeye presented the same arguments in its Petition that it had previously raised in its
Response, at the hearing, and in its Post-Hearing Brief. These were all reviewed and analyzed in
the Final Order. I specifically discussed Buckeye’s argument regarding the content of the OQ
regulations:
Section 195.505(a) requires each operator to have and follow a written
qualification program that includes provisions to identify covered tasks.
Although Buckeye is correct that many of the requirements of the pipeline
safety regulations are performance-based and not prescriptive, this does



6
not mean that performance-based activities should not be included as
“covered tasks” under an operator’s OQ program. An operator is required
to identify all of its covered tasks, using the four-part definition set forth in
§ 195.501(b). Specifically, “a covered task is an activity identified by the
operator, that: (1) Is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) Is an operations
and maintenance task; (3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and
(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.”15 Buckeye’s Task
412 meets this four-part test. It is performed on a pipeline facility, is an
operations and maintenance task, is performed as a requirement of
Part 195,16 and, as evident from the Accident, can affect the operation or
integrity of the pipeline. Therefore, Buckeye should have included Task
412 in its covered task list.17
I also addressed Buckeye’s estoppel argument:
I also find no merit in Buckeye’s argument that since OPS did not find a
violation in 2004, it is somehow estopped from asserting a probable
violation following a failure and subsequent inspection. Buckeye was
required to have a covered task list for tasks that met the four-part test by
April 27, 2001. If another inspection in another region chose not to cite a
violation at that time, it does not eliminate Buckeye’s responsibility to be
in compliance with the code. Since Buckeye must identify covered tasks
in its OQ program and failed to include Task 412, which meets the
definition of a covered task in § 195.501(a), I find that Buckeye violated
§ 195.505(a) and the proposed compliance order is appropriate.18
Finally, Buckeye contended that this item should have been a Notice of Amendment and that the
only reason this violation was included in the Notice of Probable Violation was to serve as a
predicate for Item #5. In the Final Order, I discussed in detail how § 195.505 violations are not
necessarily handled by a Notice of Amendment, stating that a review of past enforcement cases
demonstrates that § 195.505(a) violations have been addressed by civil penalties, compliance
orders, or both. The fact that this item did not have a civil penalty has no bearing on the fact that
Item #5 did. They are separate violations and PHMSA has the discretion to select the most
appropriate enforcement tool to address them.
I find no support for Buckeye’s request to either withdraw or convert this Item. This item stands
as written in the Final Order.
15 See 49 C.F.R. § 195.501(b).
16 Each operator is required under § 195.505 to scrutinize its own unique system to identify all those activities
performed on its system that meet the four-part definition of a “covered task” and to develop a proper qualification
process for each one. In this case, Buckeye was required under § 195.402(c) to have and follow procedures for
starting up and shutting down all parts of its system and for controlling receipt and delivery of product. Task 412
was one of Buckeye’s own procedures to meet this requirement.
17 Final Order, at 6.
18 Final Order, at 7.



7
Item 5: Finding of Violation of § 195.505(b)
In its Petition, Buckeye argued that Item #5 should be withdrawn for two reasons. First, the
regulation itself was vague. Second, the underlying violation (Item #4) had no civil penalty, so it
would be inappropriate to issue one for this item. I do not agree.
The fact that the agency did not issue a civil penalty for Item #4 does not have any bearing on
this Item. As discussed earlier, the decision to assess a civil penalty or a compliance order is a
discretionary enforcement decision based on the facts and evidence constituting each allegation.
Each item in a Notice of Probable Violation is separate and stands on its own evidence. Buckeye
was cited in Item #5 for a violation of § 195.505(b)— to ensure through evaluation that
individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Considering that the May 5, 2005 accident
involved a release of 85 barrels during delivery operations, that the local operator on scene was
not trained in delivery operations, and that Buckeye could not produce delivery-operations
qualification records, I believe the assessed civil penalty for this item is appropriate. Having not
found any of these arguments persuasive to withdraw Item #5, this item will remain as written in
the Final Order.19
Conclusion
Based on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby deny the
Petition and affirm the Final Order without modification, for the reasons set forth above.
Payment of the $402,500 civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision.
The payment instructions were set forth in detail in the Final Order. Failure to pay the $402,500
civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with
31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities,
a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made
within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of
the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.
In addition, the Petitioner is reminded that the Compliance Order was not stayed by the filing of
the Petition and should have been completed within the timelines listed in the Final Order. If
Petitioner should need an extension, it can file such a request with the Director, Central Region.
This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
_____________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
19 Buckeye argues in Section I of its Petition that Item # 5 should be converted to Notices of Amendment or
Warning Items but provides no further detail in Section C of its Petition.

320105006_Closure Letter_06022016_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 2, 2016
Mr. Clark Smith
President & Chief Executive Officer
Buckeye Partners, LP
One Greenway Plaza
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77046
RE: CPF 3-2010-5006
Dear Mr. Smith:
On November 19, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) issued to Buckeye Partners, LP, a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This
Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Mr. Thomas (Scott) Collier

320105006_Final Order_11192012_text.pdf

NOVEMBER 19, 2012
Mr. Clark Smith
President & Chief Executive Officer
Buckeye Partners, LP
One Greenway Plaza
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77046
Re: CPF No. 3-2010-5006
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $402,500, and specifies actions that need to be
taken by Buckeye Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil
penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the
Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Thomas (Scott) Collier, Vice President, Buckeye Partners LP – 5 TEK Park, 9999
Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA 18031
Robert E. Hogfoss, Esq., Counsel for Buckeye Partners, LP, Hunton & Williams -
Bank of America Plaza - 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4100, Atlanta, Georgia
30308
Mr. Dave Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Buckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2010-5006
)
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, on May 6, 2005, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an
investigation of an overfill incident that occurred on May 5, 2005, at Tank #133, a facility
operated by Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye or Respondent), in East Chicago, Indiana
(Accident). Buckeye owns and operates petroleum refined-products pipelines and facilities in
the Northeast and Upper Midwest, including 6,000 miles of pipelines and 100 liquid petroleum
products terminals.1
As a result of the investigation and a follow-up inspection in 2008, the Director, Central Region,
OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated April 14, 2010, a Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed several
violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and assessing a civil penalty of $481,800 for the alleged
violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct
one of the alleged violations.
Buckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated May 12, 2010 (Response). The company
contested the items in the Notice and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or
rescinded. A hearing was subsequently held on November 18, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri,
with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing,
Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, counsel for Buckeye provided a post-
hearing statement for the record, by letter dated December 3, 2010 (Closing).
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
1 See http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx (last accessed July 30, 2012).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(3), which states:
§ 195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents.
(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery of a
release of the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide transported resulting in
an event described in § 195.50, the operator of the system shall give
notice, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, of any failure that:
(1) . . .
(3) Caused estimated property damage, including cost of cleanup and
recovery, value of lost product, and damage to the property of the operator
or others, or both, exceeding $50,000; . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(3) by failing to provide
telephonic notice to the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment
following the company’s discovery of a release of 85 barrels of gasoline. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that 15 hours elapsed between the time Buckeye experienced a release at its East
Chicago, Indiana storage tank facility and the time the company finally notified the NRC.
At the hearing and in the Response, Buckeye contended that the Accident did not initially meet
the notification threshold of § 195.50. Rather, it was only after the Indiana Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) requested that Buckeye excavate an additional two feet of soil
within the dike area to remove hydrocarbons that Buckeye determined that the clean-up costs
would exceed the $50,000 threshold. The operator stated that the Accident occurred in the late
afternoon and although Buckeye contacted emergency response operators immediately, it was
not until the following day that the company met with the DEP and thereafter determined that the
property damage threshold for reporting had been met. Therefore, Buckeye maintained that the
Accident was reported at the “earliest practicable moment following discovery of a release.”
At the hearing, OPS introduced two alert notices, dated April 15, 1991 (ALN-91-01) and
August 30, 2002 (ADB-02-04), which provided guidance to the industry on how the agency
interpreted the term “earliest practicable moment.”2 This guidance and the interpretation letters
that preceded the bulletins stated that PHMSA considered “earliest practicable moment”
generally to mean one to two hours.3 Since Buckeye notified the NRC approximately 15 hours
after discovery of the Accident, OPS argued that Buckeye had not given notice at the earliest
practicable moment and therefore was in violation of § 195.52(a)(3).
Analysis
PHMSA has consistently interpreted “earliest practicable moment” to mean within one to two
hours of discovery of a release of hazardous liquid. Beginning in 1997, PHMSA has applied
this interpretation in various enforcement actions and found that “discovery” relates to the actual
2 See ALN-91-01 and ADB-02-04, located at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/advisory-bulletin.
3 See PI-71-011, located at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps.



3
release, not to the realization that an incident has resulted in circumstances (e.g., property
damage) that render the release reportable.
4
The rationale for this interpretation is both logical and practical. In Enstar Natural Gas
Company, PHMSA concluded that “[i]f the regulation were read to mean at the earliest
practicable moment following discovery of the cause of the incident, the operator would never be
required to report an incident until the cause of the incident was definitely determined.”5 In
addition, PHMSA has stated that “[t]he delay to reporting caused by an operator waiting until it
definitely decides an event meets the reporting criteria would frustrate a fundamental purpose of
the regulation, which is to give OPS and other agencies the earliest opportunity to assess whether
an immediate response to a pipeline incident is needed. Therefore, OPS requires pipeline
operators to report incidents to the NRC at the earliest practicable moment following discovery
of the incident, even if at the time of reporting there is some question as to whether reporting will
be required.”6
There are also important public safety reasons why an operator needs to make a NRC report
within one to two hours, including PHMSA’s need for immediate information to determine
whether a pipeline or facility should be shut down. PHMSA must also evaluate the cause of a
release as soon as possible after the release has been discovered, not after the evidence is stale.
Based on the information in the record, I find that the release in this case was reportable because
it exceeded the $50,000 threshold and therefore should have been reported within one to two
hours of discovery. Instead, Buckeye reported the spill 15 hours after the release. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(3) by failing to make a telephonic notice to
the NRC at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of the release.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), which states:
§ 195.401 General requirements.
7
(a) . . .
(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to
the following requirements:
(1) Non- Integrity Management repairs.
Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect
the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a
4 E.g., In the Matter of Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, CPF No. 4-2001-1003, at 3 (May 5, 2005), citing
In the Matter of Enstar Natural Gas Company, CPF No. 52016 (May 14, 1997).
5 Enstar, at 2.
6 Id.
7 On August 11, 2010, PHMSA modified the language of § 195.401 to distinguish between non-integrity
management repairs and integrity management repairs. See “Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory
References to Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Edits,” 75 FR 48607 (August 11, 2010). The language
referenced in this item reflects the current regulation but the text of (b)(1) does not vary from the language that was
in effect at the time of the inspection and quoted in the Notice.



4
reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it
presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe
condition.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to correct an
unsafe condition on its pipeline. Specifically, it alleged that Buckeye continued to fill Tank #133
at its East Chicago storage tank facility despite the discovery of a condition that presented an
immediate hazard to persons or property.
On the day of the Accident, Buckeye experienced three different alarms that alerted the operator
of an imminent hazard (overfilling) on Tank #133, yet company personnel continued filling
operations. The first alarm occurred an hour before the release. Two subsequent alarms
occurred but Buckeye continued filling. According to Buckeye’s own Internal Investigation
Report, its Control Center contacted the local operator after the first alarm, who responded that
the alarm was not accurate due to an issue with the electronic gauging of the tank levels.
Buckeye’s investigation later confirmed that the local operator was incorrect in this assessment
of the first alarm.8
In its Response and at the hearing, Buckeye did not contest this violation but argued that Items 2
and 3 should be combined. I will address the merits of this argument in the Analysis section of
Item #3. For the reasons set forth below, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by continuing to operate its pipeline system after discovery of a
condition that presented an immediate hazard to persons or property.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes
made as necessary to insure the manual is effective. This manual shall be
prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and
appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to follow two of its own written procedures when filling
Tank #133 on May 5, 2005. First, it alleged that the local operator did not accurately confirm
batch information from the Control Center when he arrived for the start of his shift and that he
failed to compare the available room in the tank to the batch volume, as required by Buckeye’s
Operating Manual Procedures B-10 Section 2.1 and 2.4.
8 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 9, 2010) (on file with PHMSA), Exhibit B.



5
Second, the Notice alleged that Buckeye experienced two high level alarms and one “high-high”
level alarm during the filling of Tank #133 and that its procedures required personnel to take
specific actions in response to these alarms, including shutting down the incoming stream and
notifying the Control Center. OPS alleged that Buckeye personnel failed to follow these
procedures in shutting down the incoming stream.
Buckeye contended at the hearing and in its Closing that although it did not contest that the local
operator’s actions caused the Accident, Items #2 and #3 should be combined. Buckeye
maintained that it should not be charged with two separate violations and civil penalties for a
single instance of operator error.9
Analysis
I have reviewed both the facts and evidence presented by OPS that support Notice Items 2 and 3
and Buckeye’s opposing evidence and arguments. In Item #2, the Notice alleged that Buckeye
became aware of a condition that presented an immediate hazard to its system but continued
filling operations, in direct violation of § 195.401(b). In Item #3, Buckeye personnel failed to
follow the company’s own procedures, which required the local operator to confirm batch
information at the start of his shift and to compare the available tank room to the batch volume.
In addition, company procedures required the Control Center to shut down the incoming stream
upon acknowledgment of a “high-high” level alarm. None of these actions took place. Since
Items 2 and 3 are based on different actions that Buckeye was supposed to take in this situation
and because the allegations are supported by different evidence, I find that both items can stand
independently as separate violations. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated § 195.401(b),
by failing to correct an unsafe condition, and § 195.402(a), by failing to follow its own
procedures when filling Tank #133.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;…
The Notice alleged that Buckeye did not include all necessary covered tasks in its Operator
Qualification (OQ) program, including tasks associated with abnormal operating conditions. The
missing tasks included delivery operations at regulated tank facilities, radiographic examination,
and magnetic particle surveys.10 Buckeye argued at the Hearing and in its Closing that there is
no list of specific covered tasks required by Part 195 and that it is a “performance based program
like much of the Part 195 regulations,” under which an operator can determine its own list of
9 Closing at 4.
10 Although the Notice alleged that Buckeye violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to include radiographic
examinations and magnetic particle surveys as covered tasks in its OQ program, the record does not contain
sufficient evidence to conclude that these two activities meet the four-part test in § 195.501 for purposes of
Buckeye’s system. Therefore, this Order neither addresses nor finds that Buckeye should have included
radiographic examinations or magnetic particle surveys as covered tasks on its system.



6
covered tasks. Buckeye focused specifically on delivery operations and contended that since
there is no explicit regulatory requirement to include tank operations (Task 412) as a covered
task, there is no basis to include a compliance order for this Item. Instead, Buckeye argued that
it would be more appropriate and typical for this Item to be covered by a Notice of
Amendment.11
In addition, Buckeye pointed out that OPS had previously reviewed the company’s OQ program
in October 2004, which resulted in two enforcement cases (CPF Nos. 1-2005-5007M and 1-
2006-5006). Neither enforcement action, however, required Buckeye to add Task 412 to its
covered task list. Therefore, Buckeye asserted that OPS was now estopped from bringing such a
violation.
Analysis
Section 195.505(a) requires each operator to have and follow a written qualification program that
includes provisions to identify covered tasks. Although Buckeye is correct that many of the
requirements in the pipeline safety regulations are performance-based and not prescriptive in
nature, this does not mean that performance-based activities are somehow excluded as “covered
tasks” under an operator’s OQ program.12 An operator is required to identify all of its covered
tasks, using the four-part definition set forth in § 195.501(b). Specifically, “a covered task is an
activity identified by the operator, that: (1) Is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) Is an
operations and maintenance task; (3) Is performed as a requirement of [Part 195]; and (4) Affects
the operation or integrity of the pipeline.”13
Buckeye’s breakout tank operations, as addressed generally by Task 412, meet this four-part test.
It is a task performed on a pipeline facility, is an operations and maintenance task, is performed
as a requirement of Part 195,14 and, as is evident from the Accident, affects the operation or
integrity of the pipeline. Therefore, Buckeye should have included tank operations, particularly
those procedures related to abnormal operations, on its covered task list.15
In the Notice, OPS proposed a compliance order for Item #4. Although Buckeye did not cite any
prior cases to support its argument that a Notice of Amendment would be the most appropriate
enforcement tool, I have reviewed past enforcement cases involving violations of § 195.505(a)
and have determined that a proposed civil penalty, a compliance order, or both, may be
11 Id.
12 E.g., In the Matter of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF No. 3-2009-5022 (August 14, 2012).
13 See 49 C.F.R. § 195.501(b).
14 Each operator is required under § 195.505 to scrutinize its own unique system to identify all those activities
performed on its system that meet the four-part definition of a “covered task” and to develop a proper qualification
process for each one. In this case, Buckeye was required under § 195.402 to have and follow procedures for
identifying, responding to, and correcting abnormal conditions in the receipt and delivery of product.
15 The Violation Report noted that the API 1161 Committee had previously identified breakout tank operations as a
covered task. While the adoption of consensus standards and industry committee policies may be supportive of
PHMSA’s interpretation and application of its regulations, they are not dispositive.



7
appropriate enforcement actions in such cases, particularly ones involving accidents. For
example, in The Matter of Sunoco Pipeline L.P., CPF No. 1-2009-5003, PHMSA issued a
compliance order for failure to identify the installation of completion plugs as a covered task.16
In The Matter of Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., CPF No. 4-2005-8004, PHMSA issued a
compliance order and a civil penalty for failure to include a large number of tasks in the
operator’s covered task list.17 Finally, in The Matter of Norfolk Southern Corporation,
CPF No. 2-2010-6004, PHMSA issued a compliance order and a civil penalty for failure to
include many specific covered tasks that were performed on the operator’s pipeline system.18
Under the circumstances of the instant case, I find that a compliance order is an appropriate
remedy to address Buckeye’s failure to include Task 412 as a covered task.
I also find no merit in Buckeye’s argument that because OPS did not find this particular OQ
violation in 2004, it is somehow estopped from asserting a probable violation following a failure
and subsequent inspection. Buckeye was required to include in its OQ program all those
particular tasks that met the four-part test by April 27, 2001. If another inspector in another
region chose not to cite a violation at that time, it does not eliminate Buckeye’s responsibility to
be in compliance with the code. Since Buckeye must identify covered tasks in its OQ program
and failed to include tank operations activities that met the four-part definition of a covered task
under § 195.501(a), I find that Buckeye violated § 195.505(a) and that the proposed compliance
order is appropriate.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . .
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered
tasks are qualified.
The Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing
covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, OPS alleged that Buckeye failed to qualify the local
operator at the East Chicago tank storage facility for performing the covered task of operating
regulated breakout tanks. Buckeye did not have a qualification record for the individual
involved in delivery operations at the time of the Accident.
In its Response and Closing, Buckeye argued that this task was not a covered task and therefore
the evaluation requirements did not apply. As discussed above in Item # 4, Task 412 is a
covered task and therefore Buckeye was required to ensure through evaluation that individuals
performing covered tasks were qualified. Buckeye also argues that this Item should have been
16 In the Matter of Sunoco Pipeline L.P., CPF No. 1-2009-5003 (November 25, 2011).
17 In The Matter of Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., CPF No. 4-2005-8004 (October 2, 2009).
18 In the Matter of Norfolk Southern Corporation, CPF No. 2-2010-6004 (April 8, 2011).



8
addressed by a Notice of Amendment instead of a proposed civil penalty. As discussed above, I
find no authority for this argument. PHMSA has issued several civil penalties for violations of
§ 195.505(b).19 Accordingly, I find that a probable violation and civil penalty, not a notice of
amendment, is appropriate under the circumstances and that Buckeye violated § 195.505(b) by
failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), as quoted above,
by failing to ensure, as of the date of the Integrated Inspection in 2008, that all individuals
performing covered tasks on breakout tanks were qualified through evaluation under the
company’s OQ Program. As alleged in the Notice, between 2005 and 2008, up to 373
individuals “would have been involved in various tasks associated with operating and
maintaining tanks across all of Buckeye’s tank facilities,” yet the company had no records
demonstrating that any of these individuals had been qualified through evaluation for tank
operations under its operator qualification program.
As discussed above in Item #5, I have found that Buckeye failed to ensure through evaluation
that the local operator of the East Chicago tank facility was qualified to perform Task 412. The
allegation here, however, is that “up to 373 individuals would have been involved in various
tasks associated with operating and maintaining tanks across all of Buckeye’s tank
facilities….” I can find no evidence in the record that 373 individuals actually performed Task
412 or other tasks that should have properly been considered “covered tasks” under
§ 195.504. Instead, there is only a list of Buckeye personnel who received tank operations
training and were therefore permitted by company policy to perform such activities. I find such
a list insufficient to prove that these individuals actually performed one or more covered tasks
without being properly qualified. Therefore, I am withdrawing Item #6.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
19 E.g., In the Matter of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., CPF No. 5-2008-5042 (March 4, 2010); In the
Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Company, CPF No. 2-2008-6002 (April 26, 2010); In the Matter of Norfolk Southern
Corporation, CPF No. 2-2010-6004 (April 8, 2011).



9
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $481,800 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.52, for failing to make a telephonic report to the NRC at the earliest practicable
moment following discovery of a reportable release. In its Response, Buckeye argued that this
Item was not a violation and therefore the civil penalty should be removed. Having analyzed and
determined that a violation did occur and having considered the assessment criteria listed under
49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I find that the proposed penalty is appropriate. Buckeye has not produced
any evidence or argument that would warrant a reduction or elimination of the penalty.
Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.52.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), for failing to correct a condition that could adversely affect the safe
operation of its pipeline system. Specifically, Buckeye experienced an imminent hazard
involving three separate alarms and yet continued filling operations.
In its Response, Buckeye argued that the proposed civil penalty amount is excessive and should
be reduced. At the hearing and in its Closing, the operator argued that this item should have
been brought as a Notice of Amendment and not a probable violation punishable by civil penalty.
I considered that argument, as discussed above, and have determined that a civil penalty in this
case is appropriate. The proposed civil penalty amount of $100,000 is based on the assessment
criteria set out in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, including the fact that the violation was a causal factor in
the Accident. Had Buckeye personnel acknowledged the alarms and discontinued filling
operations, the spill amount would have been reduced or eliminated. Accordingly, based upon
the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its own procedures when filling a regulated breakout
tank. In its Response, Buckeye argued that the proposed civil penalty amount is excessive and
should be reduced. At the hearing and in its Closing, the operator argued that this item should
have been brought as a Notice of Amendment and not a probable violation punishable by civil
penalty.
I have considered Respondent’s argument, as discussed above, and have determined that a civil
penalty in this case is appropriate. The proposed civil penalty amount of $100,000 is based on
the assessment criteria set out in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, including the fact that the violation was a
causal factor in the Accident. If the Buckeye control center had shut down the line or the local
operator had taken other precautions, as discussed in the Findings section above, the Accident
could have been avoided. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $192,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that the local operator at the East



10
Chicago storage tank facility was qualified to perform Task 412. In its Response, Buckeye
argued that the civil penalty should be removed because OPS had previously inspected
Buckeye’s OQ program and had not alleged a violation. I have reviewed the proposed civil
penalty and the assessment factors set out in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225. I find that the proposed civil
penalty was appropriately based on the fact that PHMSA, not the operator, discovered the
violation and that the violation contributed to an accident. Therefore, I assess a civil penalty of
$192,000.
Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $79,300 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that all personnel were qualified
to perform Task 412. As stated above, I have withdrawn this Item and therefore also withdraw
the associated civil penalty of $79,300.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $402,500.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $402,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 4 in the Notice for violation of
49 C.F.R. §195.505(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in
the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the
authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the
following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its
operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(a) (Item 4), Respondent must include
the missing covered task (delivery operations at regulated tank facilities) in its OQ
program. Buckeye must also develop training, evaluation, and qualification
requirements for this covered task.



11
2. 3. Buckeye must provide documentation of completion of these actions within three
months of receipt of the Final Order.
Buckeye must evaluate and qualify all personnel currently performing this task
and any additional tasks deemed pertinent after a review of covered tasks.
4. Buckeye must provide documentation of this action within six months of receipt
of the Final Order.
5. It is requested (but not required) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and
submit the total to Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs should be reported in two
categories: 1) total costs associated with preparation/revision of plans;
procedures, studies, and analyses; and 2) total costs associated with replacements,
additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all
other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ _______________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320105006_NOPV PCP PCO_04142010_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
AND
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 14, 2010
Mr. Jerry J. Ashcroft
Vice President, Field Operations
Buckeye Partners, L.P.
Five TEK Park
9999 Hamilton Boulevard
Breinigsville, PA 18031
CPF 3-2010-5006
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
On May 6, 2005, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the
Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye) procedures, records and field operations during an accident
investigation of the May 5, 2005 overfill of Tank #133 at a Buckeye storage tank facility in
East Chicago, Indiana.
On May 5 – June 22, and August 18-22 and August 25-28, 2008, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the State of New York
Department of Public Safety pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected
Buckeye procedures, records and field operations during an Integrated Inspection in
Breinigsville, PA and other areas of Pennsylvania. During the 2008 inspection, a follow-up
review of the East Chicago, IN accident that had occurred in 2005 and a review of Buckeye’s
response to their internal findings during the accident investigation were completed.



As a result of the initial investigation and the follow up inspection, it appears that you have
committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s) are:
1. § 195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents.
(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery of a release of the
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide transported resulting in an event described in
§195.50, the operator of the system shall give notice, in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, of any failure that:
3) Caused estimated property damage, including cost of cleanup and recovery,
value of lost product, and damage to the property of the operator or others, or
both, exceeding $50,000;
Buckeye did not make a telephonic notice to the National Response Center (NRC) at the
earliest practicable moment following the release of gasoline at the East Chicago, Indiana
storage tank facility. Sixteen hours elapsed from the time of the accident at 4:15 p.m. on May
5, 2005, and the time of notification to the NRC at 8:20 a.m. on May 6, 2005. A release of a
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide, resulting in cost of property damage and losses exceeding
$50,000, requires an accident report for each failure in a pipeline system. Buckeye reported
that the costs associated with the accident totaled $60,100. The telephonic notification is
required to assure proper remedial measures are taken by the operator and to inform PHMSA
in a timely manner of the occurrence.
2. § 195.401 General requirements.
(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the
safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a reasonable time.
However, if the condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard
to persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the
system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.
On May 5, 2005, Buckeye did not correct the conditions that could adversely affect the safe
operation of its system designated by three different alarms in a reasonable time. The three
alarms indicated an imminent hazard to property by the overfilling of Tank #133, which
occurred approximately one hour after the first alarm; but Buckeye continued the filling
operations. Approximately fifteen minutes after the third alarm, a maintenance crew working
in the area saw product spilling through the vents of Tank #133 onto the ground and notified
the local operator who diverted the gasoline flow to another tank.
2



3. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall
be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is
effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline
system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where
operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
Buckeye did not follow procedures when filling a regulated breakout tank on May 5, 2005 at
the East Chicago, Indiana storage tank facility. First, the local operator did not accurately
confirm batch information from the Control Center when he arrived for the start of his shift at
7:00 a.m. and did not compare the available tank room to the batch volume as required in
Buckeye’s Operating Manual Procedures B-10 Section 2.1 and 2.4. These sections state:
2.1 Confirm batch information shown on the orders, include product service of the
designated receiving tank.
2.4 Compare the available tank room to the batch volume to ensure fill heights are not
exceeded. If the room is inadequate, inform the Control Center so that appropriate
schedule modifications can be made.
Second, two high level alarms and one high-high level alarm occurred during the filling of
Tank #133 and were not properly addressed by Buckeye personnel. Buckeye procedure B-10
Section 2.9 requires specific actions to be taken by Buckeye personnel:
2.9.1 states if the tank volume reaches the high level alarm prior to batch completion,
switch the stream and/or shutdown in accordance with orders.
2.9.2 states if the tank volume causes the annunciation of a high-high alarm,
immediately shut down the incoming stream and notify the Control Center.
As a consequence of not following the written procedures, by either the local operator or the
control center, an overfill spill occurred on Tank #133 at the East Chicago, Indiana storage
tank facility. Buckeye’s Incident Investigation also identifies these procedure failures.
4. §195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;
3



As determined from reviewing Buckeye’s written operator qualification program following the
2005 tank overflow accident and again during the Integrated Inspection in 2008, Buckeye had
not included all necessary covered tasks and associated requirements in its OQ program,
including tasks associated with abnormal operating conditions. Missing covered tasks include,
among other things, delivery operations at regulated tank facilities, radiographic examination
and magnetic particle surveys.
5. §195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified;
Buckeye did not qualify the local operator under its operator qualification program through
evaluation for performing the covered task of operating regulated breakout tanks at the East
Chicago, Indiana facility. Buckeye did not have a qualification record for the individual
involved in delivery operations on May 5, 2005, whose actions contributed to product
overflowing from Tank #133 vents onto the ground.
6. §195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified;
At the time of the Integrated Inspection in 2008, Buckeye had not ensured that individuals
performing covered tasks on breakout tanks were qualified through evaluation in Buckeye’s
Qualification Program. Between 2005 and 2008, up to 373 individuals would have been
involved in various tasks associated with operating and maintaining tanks across all of
Buckeye’s tank facilities yet Buckeye had no records demonstrating that any of these
individuals had been qualified for tank operations under its operator qualification program.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $481,800 as follows:
4



Item number PENALTY
#1 $ 10,500
#2 $100,000
#3 $100,000
#5 $192,000
#6 $ 79,300
Total $481,800
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item #4 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye.
Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this
Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies
for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document
you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find
facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2010-5006 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Ivan A. Huntoon
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
5



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye) a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to Buckeye not having
included all necessary covered tasks and associated requirements into their OQ
program. The missing covered tasks include:
A. Pipeline operations at regulated tank facilities (breakout tank operations)
B. Radiographic examination
C. Magnetic particle surveys.
Buckeye shall include these covered tasks and any others deemed pertinent after a
review of the covered tasks with regard to the four-part test. Buckeye shall also
develop training, evaluation, and qualification requirements for those covered tasks
added to the OQ program. Buckeye shall provide documentation when completed,
within 3 months of receipt of the Final Order.
2. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to not having all necessary
covered tasks in their OQ Program, Buckeye will evaluate and qualify all personnel
currently performing the three tasks and any additional tasks deemed pertinent after
a review of covered tasks. Buckeye shall provide documentation when completed,
within 6 months of receipt of the Final Order.
3. Buckeye shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated
with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Mr. Ivan A. Huntoon,
Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
6



Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
The requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 190, Subpart B (§§ 190.201–190.237) govern response to
Notices issued by a Regional Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA).
Be advised that all material submitted by a respondent in response to an enforcement action is
subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive
material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete
original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you
believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the
redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
I. Procedures for Responding to a NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION:
Within 30 days of receipt of a Notice of Probable Violation, the respondent shall
respond to the Regional Director who issued the Notice in the following way:
a. When the Notice contains a proposed CIVIL PENALTY* --
1. If you are not contesting any violations alleged in the Notice, pay the
proposed civil penalty and advise the Regional Director of the payment.
This authorizes PHMSA to issue an order making findings of violation
and upon confirmation that the payment has been received PHMSA will
close the case with prejudice to the respondent. Payment terms are
outlined below;
2. If you are not contesting any violations alleged in the Notice but wish to
submit written explanations, information, or other materials you believe
warrant mitigation of the civil penalty, you may submit such materials.
This authorizes PHMSA to make findings and to issue a Final Order
assessing a penalty amount up to the amount proposed in the Notice.
Refer to 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 for assessment considerations, which
include the respondent’s ability to pay and the effect on the
respondent’s ability to stay in business, upon which civil penalties are
based;
3. If you are contesting one or more of the items in the Notice but are not
requesting an oral hearing, submit a written response to the allegations
and/or seek elimination or mitigation of the proposed civil penalty; or
4. Request a hearing as described below to contest the allegations and/or
proposed assessment of a civil penalty.
7



b. When the Notice contains a proposed COMPLIANCE ORDER* --
1. If you are not contesting the compliance order, notify the Regional
Director that you intend to take the steps in the proposed compliance
order;
2. If you are not contesting the compliance order but wish to submit written
explanations, information, or other materials you believe warrant
modification of the proposed compliance order in whole or in part, or
you seek clarification of the terms of the proposed compliance order,
you may submit such materials. This authorizes PHMSA to make
findings and issue a compliance order;
3. If you are contesting the proposed compliance order but are not
requesting an oral hearing, submit written explanations, information, or
other materials in answer to the allegations in the Notice and stating
your reasons for objecting to the proposed compliance order items in
whole or in part; or
4. Request a hearing as described below to contest the allegations and/or
proposed compliance order items.
c. When the Notice contains a WARNING ITEM --
No written response is required. The respondent is warned that if it does not
take appropriate action to correct these items, enforcement action will be
taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.
* Failure of the respondent to respond to the Notice within 30 days of receipt
constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the allegations in the Notice and
authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged
in the Notice without further notice to the respondent and to issue a Final Order.
II. Procedures for Responding to a NOTICE OF AMENDMENT*--
Within 30 days of receipt of a Notice of Amendment, the respondent shall respond to
the Regional Director who issued the Notice in the following way:
a. If you are not contesting the Notice, notify the Regional Director of your
plans to address the inadequacies identified in the Notice;
b. If you are not contesting the Notice but wish to submit written explanations,
information, or other materials you believe warrant modification of the
Notice of Amendment in whole or in part, or you seek clarification of the
terms of the Notice of Amendment, you may submit such materials. This
8



authorizes PHMSA to make findings and issue an Order Directing
Amendment;
c. If you are contesting the Notice of Amendment but are not requesting an oral
hearing, submit written explanations, information, or other materials in
answer to the allegations in the Notice and stating your reasons for objecting
to the Notice of Amendment items in whole or in part; or
d. Request a hearing as described below to contest the allegations in the Notice.
* Failure of the respondent to respond to the Notice within 30 days of receipt
constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the allegations in the Notice and
authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged
in the Notice without further notice to the respondent and to issue a Final Order.
III. Procedure for Requesting a Hearing
A request for a hearing must be in writing and accompanied by a statement of the issues
that the respondent intends to raise at the hearing. The issues may relate to the
allegations, new information, or to the proposed compliance order or proposed civil
penalty amount. Refer to 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 for assessment considerations upon
which civil penalties are based. A respondent's failure to specify an issue may result in
waiver of the right to raise that issue at the hearing. The respondent's request must also
indicate whether or not respondent will be represented by counsel at the hearing.
Failure to request a hearing in writing within 30 days of receipt of a Notice waives the
right to a hearing. In addition, if the amount of the proposed civil penalty or the
proposed corrective action is less than $10,000, the hearing will be held by telephone,
unless the respondent submits a written request for an in-person hearing. Complete
hearing procedures can be found at 49 C.F.R. § 190.211.
IV. Extensions of Time
An extension of time to prepare an appropriate response to a Notice may be granted, at
the agency's discretion, following submittal of a written request to the Regional
Director. The request must indicate the amount of time needed and the reasons for the
extension. The request must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of the Notice.
V. Freedom of Information Act
Any material provided to PHMSA by the respondent, and materials prepared by
PHMSA including the Notice and any order issued in this case, may be considered
public information and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). If you believe the information you are providing is security sensitive,
privileged, confidential or may cause your company competitive disadvantages, please
clearly identify the material and provide justification why the documents, or portions of
a document, should not be released under FOIA. If we receive a request for your
material, we will notify you if PHMSA, after reviewing the materials and your
provided justification, determines that withholding the materials does not meet any
exemption provided under the FOIA. You may appeal the agency's decision to release
9



material under the FOIA at that time. Your appeal will stay the release of those
materials until a final decision is made.
VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Information
The Small Business and Agricultural Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10
Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses
about federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on the enforcement actions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247) or go to
http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman/dsp_faq.html.
VII. Payment Instructions
Civil Penalty Payments of Less Than $10,000
Payment of a civil penalty of less than $10,000 proposed or assessed, under Subpart B
of Part 190 of the Pipeline Safety Regulations can be made by certified check, money
order or wire transfer. Payment by certified check or money order (containing the CPF
Number for this case) should be made payable to the "Department of Transportation"
and should be sent to:
Federal Aviation Administration
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center
Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341) P.O. Box 269039
Oklahoma City, OK 73125-4915
Wire transfer payments of less than $10,000 may be made through the Federal Reserve
Communications System (Fedwire) to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are provided below. Questions concerning wire transfer should be directed
to the Financial Operations Division at (405) 954-8893, or at the above address.
Civil Penalty Payments of $10,000 or more
Payment of a civil penalty of $10,000 or more proposed or assessed under Subpart B of
Part 190 of the Pipeline Safety Regulations must be made wire transfer (49 C.F.R. §
89.21 (b)(3)), through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire) to the
account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are provided below. Questions
concerning wire transfers should be directed to the Financial Operations Division at
(405) 954-8893, or at the above address.
10



INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS
(1) RECEIVER ABA NO.
021030004
(2) TYPE/SUB-TYPE
(Provided by sending bank)
(3) SENDING BANK ABA NO.
(Provided by sending bank)
(4) SENDING BANK REF NO.
(Provided by sending bank)
(5) AMOUNT (6) SENDING BANK NAME
(Provided by sending bank)
(7) RECEIVER NAME
TREAS NYC
(8) PRODUCT CODE
(Normally CTR, or as provided by sending bank)
(9) BENEFICIAL (BNF) = AGENCY
LOCATION CODE
BNF = /ALC-69-14-0001
(10) REASONS FOR PAYMENT
Example: PHMSA - CPF # / Ticket Number/Pipeline
Assessment number
INSTRUCTIONS: You, as sender of the wire transfer, must provide the sending bank with
the information for blocks (1), (5), (7), (9), and (10). The information provided in Blocks (1),
(7), and (9) are constant and remain the same for all wire transfers to the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
Block #1 - RECEIVER ABA NO. - "021030004". Ensure the sending bank enters this 9-digit
identification number; it represents the routing symbol for the U.S. Treasury at the Federal
Reserve Bank in New York.
Block #5 - AMOUNT - You as the sender provide the amount of the transfer. Please be sure
the transfer amount is punctuated with commas and a decimal point. EXAMPLE: $10,000.00
Block #7 - RECEIVER NAME - "TREAS NYC". Ensure the sending bank enters this
abbreviation. It must be used for all wire transfers to the Treasury Department.
Block #9 - BENEFICIAL - AGENCY LOCATION CODE -
"BNF=/ALC-69-14-0001".
Ensure the sending bank enters this information. This is the Agency Location Code for the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
Block #10 - REASON FOR PAYMENT - “AC-payment for PHMSA Case # / To ensure your
wire transfer is credited properly, enter the case number/ticket number or Pipeline Assessment number,
and country.”
NOTE: A wire transfer must comply with the format and instructions or the Department
cannot accept the wire transfer. You as the sender can assist this process by notifying the
Financial Operations Division (405) 954-8893 at the time you send the wire transfer.
February 2009
11

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320105006>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `1e4debe4fd1d8949027baea5092676f0be18787d7df1a1a189ad16f7b3f2d6aa`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T02:52:17.871Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-320105006`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "320105006",
  "operator": "BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP",
  "region": "Central",
  "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.401(b)",
    "195.402(a)",
    "195.505(a)",
    "195.505(b)",
    "195.52(a)(3)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 9,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "320105006_Closure Letter_06022016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Closure%20Letter_06022016.pdf",
      "bytes": 190170,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_Closure Letter_06022016_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Closure%20Letter_06022016_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 6000,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_Decision on Petition_08012013.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Decision%20on%20Petition_08012013.pdf",
      "bytes": 534195,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_Decision on Petition_08012013_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Decision%20on%20Petition_08012013_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 42853,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_Final Order_11192012.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Final%20Order_11192012.pdf",
      "bytes": 231510,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_Final Order_11192012_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Final%20Order_11192012_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 58447,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_NOPV PCP PCO_04142010.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04142010.pdf",
      "bytes": 750805,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_NOPV PCP PCO_04142010_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04142010_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 57380,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320105006_Operator Response to NOPV PCP PCO_05122010.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320105006/320105006_Operator%20Response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05122010.pdf",
      "bytes": 1392903,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 4,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP"
}
```