{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120125002","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-02-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(c)(3), 195.430(a), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120125002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(c)(3),  195.430(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2012-02-07 and is reported as closed as of 2013-01-07. Proposed civil penalty: $67,900. Assessed civil penalty: $11,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120125002_ NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125002/120125002_%20NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012.pdf\n\n120125002_ NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125002/120125002_%20NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012_text.pdf\n\n120125002_Final Order_12182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125002/120125002_Final%20Order_12182012.pdf\n\n120125002_Final Order_12182012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125002/120125002_Final%20Order_12182012_text.pdf\n\n120125002_Operator Response to Notice_03082012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125002/120125002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03082012.pdf\n\n120125002_ NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nFebruary 07, 2012\nJerry Ashcroft\nVice President of Field Operations\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2012-5002\nDear Mr. Ashcroft:\nFrom June 15 to 19, 2009, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected Buckeye Partners, L.P.’s\n(Buckeye) pipeline and facilities in New Haven, Connecticut.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,\ninspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient\ndetail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years,\nexcept that records related to Secs. 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c)\nmust be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nBuckeye failed to maintain records of each atmospheric corrosion inspection, as required by\n§195.583(a), for at least 5 years.\n\n\n\n120125002\nDuring the inspection, a PHMSA representative requested Buckeye personnel to provide records\nof atmospheric corrosion inspections for the New Haven facility. However, Buckeye personnel\ncould not provide any records of atmospheric corrosion inspections at the time of the inspection.\n2. §195.404 Maps and Records.\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified;\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained for at\nleast 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.\nBuckeye failed to maintain records of each overpressure safety device inspection and test as\nrequired by §195.428(a), for at least 2 years from 2007 through the PHMSA inspection performed\nin 2009.\nDuring the field inspection at Ludlow Tank Farm, a PHMSA representative observed that there\nwere three (3) breakout tanks. Each of these breakout tanks has a thermal relief valve at an inlet\nand at the outlet, totaling six (6) thermal relief valves. The PHMSA representative requested\nBuckeye personnel to provide records of the overpressure safety device inspection and test\npursuant to §195.428(a). However, Buckeye personnel could not produce any records or\ndocumentation at the time of the inspection.\n3. §195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and\nbreakout tank area. The equipment must be-\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;\nBuckeye failed to maintain firefighting equipment in proper operating condition at all times at the\nLudlow Tank Farm.\nDuring the field inspection at Ludlow Tank Farm, a PHMSA representative observed that the\nlever on the nozzle of a foam hose was in a peculiar position. The lever was used to start and stop\nflow from the nozzle. The PHMSA representative requested a Buckeye representative to\ndemonstrate how to operate the firefighting equipment for the purpose of fighting fires. The\nBuckeye representative could not move the lever because it was jammed, which made the\nfirefighting equipment inoperable.\n4. §195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,\ninspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient\ndetail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years,\nexcept that records related to Secs. 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c)\nmust be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nBuckeye failed to maintain a record of an internal inspection, required by §195.579(c), or a record\ncontrol measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.\n120125002_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n120125002\nA pipeline replacement project was conducted on September 18, 2008, at Waterfront Street.\nUnder §195.579(c), whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you must inspect the internal\nsurface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. Buckeye did not have written documentation that\nan inspection had been performed. Buckeye indicated that an internal inspection was performed\nand that the existing pipe was in good condition, but provided no records.\n5. §195.404 Maps and Records.\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified;\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained for at\nleast 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.\nBuckeye failed to maintain records of Right-of-Way (ROW) inspections, required by\n§195.412(a), for at least 2 years.\nBuckeye’s procedures for ROW inspections, D-02-Pipeline Right of Way, established several\nmethods (primarily walking and flying) to inspect the ROW. Additionally, D-02-Pipeline Right\nof Way refers to ROW inspections shall be inspected within the time frequency listed on the\nComprehensive Scheduling Chart in Section D-01. The chart recites the requirement prescribed\nin §195.412(a).\nA PHMSA representative requested a Buckeye representative to provide records of ROW\ninspections for the entire pipeline from New Haven, Connecticut, to Ludlow Station in\nMassachusetts, in accordance to its procedure, D-02-Pipeline Right of Way. The Buckeye\nrepresentative produced an incomplete work order list from 2/18/2009 to 5/21/2009 for walking\nthe line that had no information regarding the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline\nROW. Furthermore, the aforementioned list showed a segregated section of the facility rather\nthan the entire facility.\nPHMSA found this list to be inadequate for ROW inspection records; therefore, Buckeye did not\ncomply with §195.404(c)(3).\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each\nviolation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation\ninvolved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil\npenalty of $67,900 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $11,800\n2 $18,800\n4 $11,800\n5 $25,500\n120125002_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n120125002\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 2 and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nWarning Item\nWith respect to item 3, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this\ncase and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at\nthis time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Be advised that failure to do so may result in\nBuckeye being subject to additional enforcement action.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that\nall material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available.\nIf you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If\nyou do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease address your correspondence to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern, 820 Bear Tavern Rd,\nSuite 103, Bear Tavern Rd, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-5002 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a (signed) copy in electronic format whenever possible. Smaller\nfiles may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the\noriginal paper copy to the Eastern Region Office\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120125002_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n120125002\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners L.P. (Buckeye) a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye with the pipeline safety\nregulations:\n1. Regarding Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to §195.404(c)(3), all thermal relief valves\nat Ludlow Tank Farm must be inspected and tested, as prescribed in §195.428(a), within 60\ndays after receipt of the Final Order.\n2. Regarding Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to §195. 404(c)(3), Buckeye must inspect\nthe surface condition on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way, for the entire pipeline from\nNew Haven, Connecticut, to Ludlow Station in Massachusetts, as prescribed in §195.412(a),\nwithin 90 days after receipt of the Final Order.\n3. Buckeye must record all inspections and tests set forth in the items of the compliance order.\nThis must be done in accordance to the regulation and Buckeye’s Operation and Maintenance\nManual, if applicable.\n4. Buckeye must make all records and/ documentation available for review by the Director upon\nrequest.\n5. Buckeye must provide a summary report to demonstrate compliance with all the above items to\nthe Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 820\nBear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628 within 120 days after receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n6. It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintains documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submits the total to\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120125002_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02072012 Page 5 of 5\n\n120125002_Final Order_12182012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 18, 2012\nMr. Clark Smith\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nSuite 600\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-5002\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws three of\nthe allegations of violation, makes one finding of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $11,800,\nand issues a warning to Buckeye Partners, LP, with respect to one other alleged probable\nviolation. 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\n49 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. Thomas (Scott) Collier, Director, Performance Assurance, Buckeye Partners, LP,\nFive TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA 18031\nMr. Byron Coy, Eastern Region Director, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2012-5002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween June 15 and 19, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous 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), in New Haven, Connecticut. Buckeye owns and operates\napproximately 6,000 miles of pipeline transporting refined petroleum products and highly\nvolatile liquids.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated February 7, 2012, 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 Buckeye had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $67,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated March 8, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested three allegations, agreed with one, offered additional information in response to the\nNotice, and requested that several of the proposed penalties be eliminated. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\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:\n1 http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx and\nhttp://www.buckeye.com/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last accessed on June 22, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\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\nrecords of each inspection required by Subpart H (Corrosion Control) for at least five years.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye was unable, at the time of the PHMSA inspection,\nto produce records of atmospheric corrosion inspections required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) for\nthe company’s New Haven facility.\nRespondent contested this allegation of violation, asserting that it did provide records at the time\nof the inspection. In its Response, Buckeye attached copies of the requested records. The\nrecords showed that atmospheric corrosion inspections had been performed on the New Haven\nfacility on October 27, 2003, and again on October 24, 2006.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that the records submitted by Buckeye in its\nResponse satisfy the record maintenance requirement for the atmospheric corrosion inspections\nat the New Haven facility. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a)….\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods\nspecified:…\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall\nbe maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection and test required by Subpart F (Operation and Maintenance) for at least\ntwo years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. Specifically, it\nalleged that Buckeye failed to maintain records of each overpressure safety device inspection, as\nrequired by § 195.428(a), for at least two years from 2007 through the 2009.\nThe Notice alleged that during the inspection, a PHSMA representative observed three breakout\ntanks at Respondent’s Ludlow Tank Farm, each of which had two thermal relief valves. One\nvalve was for the inlet and one for the outlet line of each tank, for a total of six among the three\ntanks. Buckeye was unable to produce any records or documentation for the overpressure safety\ndevice inspections for these valves at the time of the inspection.\n\n\n\n3\nUnder § 195.428, an overpressure safety device must be inspected and tested at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it is functioning\nproperly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and\nreliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nBuckeye contested the allegation, asserting that there were only five active tank lines associated\nwith the three tanks, not six. Tanks 1 and 2 each had an incoming and outgoing line, but Tank 3\nonly had one. The company further explained that Tanks 1 and 2 had no thermal relief valves on\neither the incoming or outgoing tank lines, but were joined together into one line, for which\nthermal relief protection was located in the pump house. As for Tank 3, Buckeye explained there\nwas a thermal relief valve on the incoming/outbound line at the tank. Both thermal relief valves\nwere inspected once per calendar year (not to exceed 15 months).\nI agree. Having reviewed the records and photograph, along with the company’s description of\nthe valve configuration, it appears that the two thermal relief valves were inspected at the\nprescribed interval. Accordingly, I find that the records submitted by Buckeye in its Response\nsatisfy the record maintenance requirement for the overpressure safety devices at Ludlow Tank\nFarm. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), as cited above, by\nfailing to maintain a record of each inspection required by Subpart H (Corrosion Control) for at\nleast five years. Such records must show sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures do not exist.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that on September 18, 2008, Buckeye conducted a pipeline\nreplacement project at Waterfront Street. Although Buckeye’s project engineer claimed that the\ncompany performed an internal pipe visual inspection, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c), the\ncompany had no records to document that it had actually performed such an inspection.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a record of the internal inspection of the pipe in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures do not exist.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), as quoted above,\nby failing to maintain a record of each inspection and test required by Subpart F (Operation and\nMaintenance) for at least two years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is\nlonger. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to maintain records of Right-of-Way\n(ROW) inspections required by § 195.412(a) for at least two years. According to the Notice,\nBuckeye provided incomplete records of ROW inspections for the entire pipeline from New\nHaven, Connecticut, to Ludlow Station in Massachusetts between February 18, 2009, and\nMay 21, 2009. The records produced only showed a segregated section of the facility rather\nthan the entire facility and had no information regarding the surface conditions on or adjacent to\neach pipeline ROW.\nIn its Response, Buckeye contested this allegation, contending that it used air patrols to perform\n\n\n\n4\nROW inspections at intervals not exceeding three weeks, but at least 26 times per year. The\nrecord provided to PHMSA for the period between February 18, 2009, and May 21, 2009 was\nonly a summary listing of the work orders for ROW walking patrols in addition to the 26\nrequired during the calendar year.\nUpon review of the record, it appears that Buckeye submitted spreadsheets indicating that air\npatrols for eight line sections were performed every two weeks from January 3, 2006, to\nJune 14, 2009. Buckeye also submitted six examples of pilot reports dated: January 3, 2007,\nJune 18, 2007, January 21, 2008, June 17, 2008, January 12, 2009, and June 8, 2009.\nAccordingly, I find that the records submitted by Buckeye in its Response satisfy the record\nmaintenance requirement for the ROW inspections for the entire pipeline. Based upon the\nforegoing, I hereby order that Item 5 be withdrawn.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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 $67,900 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), for failing to maintain records of each atmospheric corrosion inspection\nfor at least five years. As discussed above, Item 1 is withdrawn. Therefore, I also withdraw the\nproposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), for failing to maintain records of each overpressure safety device\ninspection as required by § 195.428(a) for at least two years from 2007 through the 2009. As\ndiscussed above, Item 2 is withdrawn. Therefore, I also withdraw the proposed penalty for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), for failing to maintain a record of the internal inspection of the pipe in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures do not exist. Buckeye did not contest this allegation of violation or\n\n\n\n5\noffer any argument or evidence justifying a reduction in penalty. Internal corrosion can lead to a\nleak or rupture of the pipeline, thus posing a risk to life, property, and the environment. The\nproposed penalty taken into account the substantial period of time that elapsed between the time\nof the replacement project in 2008 and the date of the inspection. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $11,800\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404, for failing to maintain records of ROW inspections for at least two years.\nAs discussed above, Item 5 is withdrawn. Therefore, I withdraw the proposed penalty for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for Item 4 cited\nabove, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $11,800.\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\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $11,800 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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404. However, I have withdrawn these items. Accordingly, the\ncompliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.430 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nadequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area in\n\n\n\n6\ngood operating condition at all times. During the inspection, a Buckeye\nrepresentative could not move the lever on the nozzle of a foam hose at Ludlow\nTank Farm because it was jammed and therefore inoperable.\nBuckeye presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress this item. Buckeye explained that it had inspected and lubricated the nozzle, which then\nfunctioned properly, and that it intended to lubricate the nozzle every month to ensure its\noperability. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29086}