{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120065006","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-07-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.507.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120065006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120065006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120065006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120065006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.507. The case was opened on 2006-07-12 and is reported as closed as of 2009-05-19. Proposed civil penalty: $15,000. Assessed civil penalty: $7,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120065006_FinalOrder_01292009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120065006/120065006_FinalOrder_01292009.pdf\n\n120065006_FinalOrder_01292009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120065006/120065006_FinalOrder_01292009_text.pdf\n\n120065006_FinalOrder_01292009_text.pdf\n\nMr. Eric Gustafson\nSenior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive Tek Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nRe: CPF No. 1-2006-5006\nDear Mr. Gustafson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nassesses a civil penalty of $7,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Buckeye to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,\nas determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your\nreceipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6163 7329]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBuckeye Partners, L.P., )\nf/k/a Buckeye Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 1-2006-5006\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 19-21, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and the\nState of New York, Public Service Commission, conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection\nof the operator qualification records of Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye or Respondent), 1at the\ncompany’s Emmaus, Pennsylvania, facility. Buckeye owns and operates 5,400 miles of\nhazardous liquid pipelines serving seventeen states.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated July 12, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $15,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated August 7, 2006 (Response). Buckeye contested\nthe alleged violations in part, offered information to explain the allegations, and requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507, which states:\n1 On December 15, 2004, Buckeye Pipeline Company reorganized, with Buckeye Partners, L.P., as the new owner\nand operator of the pipeline facilities that are the subject of this Final Order.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.507 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance\nwith this subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified\nto perform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall\nbe maintained while the individual is performing the covered task.\nRecords of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer\nperforming covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.\nThe Notice alleged that Buckeye violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507 by failing to maintain proper\noperator qualification records for four employees (hereinafter referred to as “Employee A,”\n“Employee B,” “Employee C,” and “Employee D”). Pursuant to the pipeline safety regulations,\nonly qualified employees may perform “covered tasks,” which are defined as operation or\nmaintenance tasks that affect the integrity of the pipeline.2 Operators must maintain records\ndemonstrating that each employee is qualified for a particular covered task. However, Buckeye\ncould not demonstrate that these four employees were properly qualified to perform their\nassigned covered tasks.\nAccording to Respondent’s records reviewed at the inspection site, Employee A was evaluated\nunder the “work performance history review” method for Covered Task 747. However, using\nthis process as the sole method to evaluate an employee’s qualifications is allowed only for tasks\nperformed by the employee prior to October 26, 1999.3 Employee A, however, was hired on\nJuly 24, 2000, more than nine months after the deadline. It was therefore improper for\nRespondent to evaluate this employee for Task 747 using the work performance history review\nmethod. Respondent failed to produce any other documentation of Employee A’s qualifications.\nIn the Response, Buckeye admitted that Employee A’s file was inaccurate and attributed the\nmistake to a data entry error that erroneously showed the employee as being qualified for this\nparticular task. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated the recordkeeping requirements of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.507 by failing to maintain records that demonstrated the company’s compliance\nwith Subpart G of Part 195 (Qualification of Pipeline Personnel).\nThe Notice further alleged that, Respondent’s qualification records for Employee C to perform\nCovered Task 747 were incomplete. In its Response to the Notice, Buckeye did not contest this\nallegation. Without accurate records authenticated by a signed evaluation, Respondent cannot\nestablish which tasks this employee was qualified to perform.\nAlthough Respondent has now removed Task 747 from its covered task list, the qualification\nrecords for Employee A and C were deficient at the time of the inspection. Accordingly, I find\n2 See 49 C.F.R. § 195.501(b).\n3 See 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(c).\n\n\n\n3\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507 by failing to maintain adequate records setting\nforth each individual employee’s qualifications for the covered tasks.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED VIOLATIONS\nThe Notice also alleged that Respondent did not maintain proper qualification records for\nEmployee B, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.507. Employee B was also evaluated by the work\nperformance history review method but his supervisor verified his qualifications two months\nprior to Employee B’s signature on the document, thus casting doubt on the authenticity of the\nrecords. In its Response, Buckeye acknowledged that this employee had not been qualified by\nthe work performance history review method.\nAccording to Respondent, the document in question referred to a review conducted by both the\nemployee and supervisor to determine work history and was not intended to serve as a qualifying\ndocument for a covered task. Respondent provided Employee B’s “Qualifications Checklist”\nand attached it to the Response to show that this employee had been qualified by another\nmethod. Upon reviewing all of the documents available at the time of the inspection, including\nthe Qualifications Checklist, I find that Respondent did indeed maintain adequate records under\n49 C.F.R. § 195.507, demonstrating that Employee B was properly qualified. Accordingly, the\nallegation under Item 1 relating to Employee B is hereby withdrawn.\nThe Notice further alleged that Respondent did not maintain proper qualification records for\nEmployee D, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.507. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent’s records failed to indicate that a demonstration of Tasks 1005, 1019, and 1025 had\noccurred. Under Buckeye’s Operator Qualification Plan, employees must perform a\ndemonstration of these particular tasks in order to be deemed qualified.\nThe pipeline safety regulations require operators to confirm through various evaluation methods\nthat each individual performing covered tasks on the operator’s pipeline facilities is properly\nqualified.4 Operators may use various methods to evaluate an individual’s qualifications, as long\nas the process is established and documented by the operator to determine such individual’s\nactual ability to perform a covered task.5 In this case, Buckeye chose to use a demonstration of\nthe task by the employee and documented this technique in its Operator’s Qualification plan.\nThe records for Employee D, however, showed that a demonstration did not occur. In its\nResponse, Respondent admitted that the qualification documents did not reference a\ndemonstration but contended the belief that there had been a misunderstanding during the\ninspection regarding the availability of records in Employee D’s file. Buckeye stated that the\nOPS inspector had been provided with additional documentation at the time of the inspection\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).\n5 49 C.F.R. § 195.503(b).\n\n\n\n4\nconfirming that the demonstration did occur. Respondent re-submitted this documentation in\nits Response. Upon reviewing the documents available at the time of the inspection, I find that\nRespondent did indeed maintain adequate records under 49 C.F.R. § 195.507 demonstrating that\nEmployee D was properly qualified. Therefore, the allegation under Item 1 relating to Employee\nD is hereby withdrawn.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $15,000 for the various violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.507.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to produce records demonstrating the qualifications of\nfour employees. Respondent provided explanations for Employees B and D and documents that\nwere available at the time of the inspection. As noted above, I find that Respondent did, in fact,\nmaintain adequate qualification records for Employees B and D. Therefore, those portions of\nItem 1 have been withdrawn.\nAs for Employees A and C, I found that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507 by failing to\nmaintain adequate records demonstrating compliance with Subpart G of Part 195. Pursuant to the\npipeline safety regulations, only qualified employees may perform covered tasks. The safety of\nthe pipeline and the public is dependent upon operators implementing these qualification\nstandards. If an operator is unable to produce accurate records at the time of an inspection, then\nthe public cannot be assured that only qualified employees are conducting those tasks alleching\nthe integrity of the pipeline. At the time of the inspection, Respondent failed to produce records\ndemonstrating the qualifications of Employees A and C. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria for the alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.507\nrelating to those two employees, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $7,500.00.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n“U.S. Department of Transportation” to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma\nCity, OK 73125.\n\n\n\n5\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire\ntransfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the\nU.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK\n73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $7,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §\n195.507.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. §60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601.\nThe Director has indicated that Buckeye has satisfied Requirement 1 of the proposed compliance\norder. Specifically, Respondent removed Task 747 from the covered tasks list and supplied\ndocumentation regarding Employee D’s qualifications. These actions obviate the need for\nRespondent to re-evaluate Employees A, B, C, and D, as directed in Requirement 1 of the\nproposed compliance order.\nHowever, Requirements 2, 3, 4 of the proposed compliance order still remain outstanding.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations. Respondent shall:\n1. Review the records for all of its employees other than Employees A, B, C, and D that are\ncovered under Buckeye’s Operator Qualification Plan and re-qualify all employees lacking\nproper records.\n2. Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with completing this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration, 409 3rd Street, S.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20024,\nwithin 90 days of receipt of this Final Order. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total\ncost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total\ncost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n\n\n6\n3. Respondent shall complete the above-referenced tasks within 90 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder and submit correspondence demonstrating compliance with these items to the Eastern\nRegion Director.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order,\nincluding any required corrective action, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be\neffective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17082}