{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120115003","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-04-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.573(a)(1), 195.573(e), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120115003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120115003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120115003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120115003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.573(a)(1),  195.573(e),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2011-04-15 and is reported as closed as of 2012-07-01. Proposed civil penalty: $85,700. Assessed civil penalty: $74,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120115003_ Operator Response to Notice_05172011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115003/120115003_%20Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05172011.pdf\n\n120115003_Final Order_06152012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115003/120115003_Final%20Order_06152012.pdf\n\n120115003_Final Order_06152012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115003/120115003_Final%20Order_06152012_text.pdf\n\n120115003_NOPV_04152011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115003/120115003_NOPV_04152011.pdf\n\n120115003_NOPV_04152011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115003/120115003_NOPV_04152011_text.pdf\n\n120115003_Final Order_06152012_text.pdf\n\nJUNE 15, 2012\nMr. Clark Smith\nPresident\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza, Suite 600\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2011-5003\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of\nthe allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$74,400. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Jeremiah Ashcroft, Senior Vice President, Global Operations, Buckeye Partners, LP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2011-5003\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 11 – 20, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Buckeye Partners\nLP (Buckeye or Respondent) near Boothwyn, Pennsylvania. Buckeye owns and operates\napproximately 6,000 miles of pipelines transporting refined products and highly volatile liquids,\nprincipally in the Northeastern and upper Midwestern states.\n1 Approximately 3,558 of those\npipeline miles are in or could affect High Consequence Areas (HCAs)2 and are covered by\npump stations and the associated pipeline near Boothwyn, Pennsylvania.\nBuckeye’s integrity management program.3 The inspection encompassed the Booth and Chelsea\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 15, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Buckeye had\ncommitted various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$85,700 for the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated May 17, 2011 (Response). The company\ncontested some of the allegations, did not contest one of the allegations, offered additional\ninformation in response to the Notice, provided an explanation of its actions, and requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\n1 http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx and\nhttp://www.buckeye.com/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last accessed on March 22, 2012).\n2 49 C.F.R. § 195.450.\n3 49 C.F.R. § 195.452.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), which states:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a)….\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required\nby this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures\ndoes not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years, except\nthat records related to §§ 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3)\nand (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review,\nsurvey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures did not exist.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye did not maintain records of its annual cathodic\nprotection survey readings for the ML drain unit #111 in 2008 and the M&H XHG location\n1274+78 on the Line 724 pipeline in 2009.\nIn its Response, Buckeye acknowledged that it did not take readings at these test points for the\nyears indicated. However, Buckeye argued that it did demonstrate adequacy of cathodic\nprotection despite the missed 2009 reading on the Line 724 pipeline.4 Buckeye stated that its\ndata prior to the 2009 survey and the data from the other test point locations on the pipeline\ndemonstrated the adequacy of its cathodic protection, and that in its opinion, failing to take a\nmeasurement at this test station during the 2009 survey did not impact its ability to determine the\npipeline’s overall cathodic protection status.\n5\nUnder 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1), tests on the pipeline are required each calendar year to determine\nwhether cathodic protection complies with § 195.571. This regulation requires cathodic\nprotection to comply with one or more of the applicable criteria in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of\nNACE Standard RP 0169. The NACE Standard allows operators to use the criteria specified\ntherein, but also allows the continued use of “criteria that have been successfully applied on\nexisting piping systems.\ntests.\n”6 Section 195.589(c) requires Buckeye to maintain records of these\nBuckeye stated that, in its opinion, the failure to obtain this measurement or maintain this record\ndid not impact its ability to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection, but did not provide\n4 Response at 1.\n5 Id.\n6 NACE Standard RP 0169, paragraph 6.2.1.\n\n\n\n3\nfurther historical or environmental evidence to demonstrate that the cathodic protection was in\ncompliance with NACE Standard RP 0169. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a record of each\nanalysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test\nrequired by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control\nmeasures or that corrosion requiring control measures did not exist.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), which states:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a)….\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required\nby this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures\ndoes not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years, except\nthat records related to §§ 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3)\nand (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review,\nsurvey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures did not exist.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to maintain records of the September and\nNovember 2008 performance checks of a particular rectifier. Under § 195.573(c), rectifiers must\nbe checked for proper performance at least six times each calendar year, but at intervals not\nexceeding 2½ months.\nIn its Response, Buckeye stated that the records were not in its data management system at the\ntime of the inspection due to a field computer issue. Buckeye also submitted work order records\ndemonstrating that the rectifier was checked in September and November 2008 at the required\nintervals and was found to be operating normally on both occasions.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that the work orders submitted by\nBuckeye in its Response satisfy the record maintenance requirement for the performance checks\nof the rectifier. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\na) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§ 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\n\n\n\n4\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at\nthose intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of\nbare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once\nevery 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a) by failing to conduct tests\non the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to conduct tests at four test station\nlocations (63rd and Lebanon location 848+53, Chester Road TR 320 location 767+71, T-394\nSpohn Road location 2428+17, and LR 06062 Fritztown Road location 2490+26) in 2008 and\n2009 because the test stations had been damaged.\nIn its Response, Buckeye acknowledged that there were no records of tests in 2008 and 2009 for\nthese four test stations. Buckeye also stated that there was sufficient data from other test stations\non the three pipelines in question to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection.7\nFailing to take readings at particular test stations prevents an operator from reaching a\ncomprehensive documented determination about the adequacy of its cathodic protection.8\nDuring the inspection, Buckeye provided no explanation for the failure to conduct these tests\nother than to note that the test stations were not operational and provided no explanation for why\nthe test stations had not been repaired following the discovery of the damage. In its Response,\nBuckeye did not offer any documentation to show that a determination was made at the time the\ntests were required to be performed that the cathodic protection was adequate without the data\nreadings from these test stations.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a) by failing to conduct tests on the cathodically protected pipeline at least\nonce each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a)….\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency\ninvolves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,\nyou must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct\nidentified deficiencies in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Buckeye did not take any action to correct deficiencies identified at two different\nlocations where the pipe-to-soil test measurements taken in 2008 and 2009 were more negative\nthan -5 volts.\n7 Response at 2.\n8 See, e.g., IN THE MATTER OF SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P., November 15, 2005.\n\n\n\n5\nIn its Response, Buckeye disagreed that readings more negative than -5 volts “dictate that there\nis a deficiency in corrosion control for its pipeline.\n”9 Buckeye stated that such pipe-to-soil\nmeasurements “may exist in a dynamic/static stray current and should not be deemed as\ninstead of performing further evaluation or implementing mitigative measures, it simply\nconcluded that these abnormal readings were not indicative of a deficiency in corrosion control\nand no further corrective action was necessary. I disagree. Abnormal pipe-to-soil measurements\nindicate that a condition exists where corrosion could result, and corrective action must be taken.\nA pipeline operator with such readings would be expected to investigate whether the stray\nby installing grounding sources to nullify the effects of the stray currents.\ndeficient, unresolved, or a result of inadequate mitigation.”10 Buckeye’s Response indicates that,\ncurrents could adversely affect the safe operation of the pipeline or to mitigate such interference\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct identified deficiencies in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b).\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), which:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a)….\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required\nby this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures\ndoes not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years, except\nthat records related to §§ 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3)\nand (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review,\nsurvey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures did not exist.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye did not maintain, for at least 5 years records of\natmospheric corrosion inspections required by § 195.583(a) for its exposed pipe near the Booth\nand Chelsea pump stations in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control\nmeasures. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to\nmaintain records of atmospheric corrosion inspections required by § 195.583(a) for at least 5\nyears.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n9 Response at 2.\n10 Id.\n\n\n\n6\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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $85,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), for failing to maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures did not exist. I found that Buckeye did not maintain records of its\nannual cathodic protection survey readings for two test points and did not demonstrate that its\ncathodic protection was in compliance with NACE Standard RP 0169. Buckeye did not offer\nany other arguments or evidence justifying a reduction in penalty.\nInadequate cathodic protection may lead to external corrosion, which can result in pipeline leaks\nor failures. The proposed penalty also took this risk into account, as well as the fact that no\npipeline failures or spills were associated with the violation. The nature, circumstances and\ngravity of the violation warrant the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $11,300 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), for failing to maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. As discussed above, Item 2 is withdrawn. Therefore,\nI withdraw the proposed penalty for this violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,900 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a), for failing to conduct tests on the cathodically protected pipeline at least\nonce each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. I found that Buckeye\nfailed to conduct tests at four test station locations in 2008 and 2009 because the test stations had\nbeen damaged. Respondent stated that it believed it had sufficient data even without these tests\nto determine the adequacy of cathodic protection, but offered no evidence of this, no explanation\nfor its failure to repair the test stations after the damage was initially discovered, and no other\n\n\n\n7\nargument or evidence justifying a reduction in the penalty. Inadequate cathodic protection can\nresult in pipeline leaks and the release of hazardous liquid. Given the potential threat, I find that\nthe nature, gravity, and circumstances of the violation support the proposed penalty amount. The\nviolation continued for a substantial period yet the proposed penalty is far below the $100,000\nper violation per day limit. This reflects the fact that no pipeline failures or spills were\nassociated with the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,900 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), for failing to correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control as\nrequired by § 195.401(b). I found that Buckeye did not take any action to correct identified\ndeficiencies at two different locations. Abnormal pipe-to-soil measurements indicate that a\ncondition exists where corrosion could result, and corrective action must be taken. Respondent\nmay not have had an accurate understanding of the effectiveness of its cathodic protection\nsystem. Inadequate cathodic protection may lead to external corrosion, which, in turn, can result\nin pipeline leaks or failures. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,300 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,900 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), by failing to maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures did not exist. I found that Buckeye did not maintain, for at least 5\nyears, records of atmospheric corrosion inspections required by § 195.583(a) for its exposed pipe\nnear the Booth and Chelsea pump stations in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Atmospheric corrosion can result in\na release of hazardous liquids, thus posing a risk to life, property and the environment. The\npenalty proposed took into account that this violation lasted for a substantial period, and that no\npipeline failures or spills were associated with the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $11,900 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $74,400.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\n\n\n\n8\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $74,400 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":24754}