BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Amendment

120025003m_order directing amendment_02112003_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFO U 5 Department of Transpoitafxxt Research and Speetal teraRrams Administtahan 400 sevenrh Sheer S W Weehrnglon 0 C 20500 FEB 11 2003 Mr Bnan Jury Vice President, Field Operations Buckeye Pipehne Company P 0 Box 368 Emmaus, PA 18049 Re CPF No I-2002-5003M Dear Mr Jury Enclosed is the Order Directing Amendment issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipehne Safety in the above-referenced case The Order finds that you have addressed the inadequacies m your procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment Your receipt of the Order Directing Amendment constitutes service of that document under 49 C F R I'I 190 5 This enforcement action is now closed Sincerely GwendolynM Hi I Pipeline Compliance Registry Office of Pipehne Safety Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED#

120025003m_order directing amendment_02112003_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of Buckeye Pipehne Company, Respondent CPF No I-2002-5003M ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT On January 16-17, 2002, pursuant to 49 U S C tI 60117, representatives of the Eastern and Central Regions, Office of Pipehne Safety (OPS), inspected Buckeye Pipeline Company's (Respondent's) integnty management program at Respondent's facihty in Emmaus, Pennsylvania As a result of the mspection, the Eastern Regional Director, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 21, 2002, a Notice of Amendment (NOA) The NOA alleged inadequacies m Respondent's integnty management program and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C F R tJ 195 452(f)(1) Respondent responded to the NOA by letter dated June 10, 2002 (Response) Respondent did not contest the NOA and did not request a heanng, consequently Respondent waived its right to one However, Respondent submitted amended tntegnty management program procedures to address the inadequacies cited in the NOA The Eastern Region reviewed the revised procedures Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that Respondent's original mtegnty management program procedures as described in the NOA were madequate to ensure safe operation of its pipehne system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies Respondent need not take any further action with respect to the matters in this case The terms and conditions of this Order Directmg Amendment are effective upon receipt FEB 11 2003 Date Issued Stacey Gerard Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#