{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120135002","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-01-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.573(e), 195.575(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120135002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.573(e),  195.575(a). The case was opened on 2013-01-23 and is reported as closed as of 2015-02-11. Proposed civil penalty: $96,500. Assessed civil penalty: $78,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120135002_Closure Letter_02112015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Closure%20Letter_02112015.pdf\n\n120135002_Closure Letter_02112015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Closure%20Letter_02112015_text.pdf\n\n120135002_Final Order_08292014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Final%20Order_08292014.pdf\n\n120135002_Final Order_08292014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Final%20Order_08292014_text.pdf\n\n120135002_NOPV PCP PCO_01232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01232013_text.pdf\n\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013.pdf\n\n120135002_Closure Letter_02112015_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nFebruary 11, 2015\nThomas Collier\nVP, Performance Assurance & Asser Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nFive Tek Park\n9999 Hamilton Blvd\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn August 29, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye), a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation Buckeye provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that Buckeye has complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Mr. Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS\n\n120135002_NOPV PCP PCO_01232013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nJanuary 23, 2013\nMr. Thomas S. Collier,\nVP Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn September 12 - 16, 2011, an inspector from the New York State Department of Public Service\n(NYSDPS), acting as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the Buckeye Partners, L.P.(Buckeye) pipeline\nfacilities in Rochester, NY.\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. § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as required by\n§195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program\nunder §195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by §195.452(h).\nBuckeye did not correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required by §195.573(a).\nNYSDPS staff reviewed Buckeye corrosion records and found consecutive years of annual cathodic\nprotection (CP) inspections with pipe-to-soil readings that did not meet Buckeye’s criteria of -0.85 volts\npipe-to-soil (P/S).\nThe NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual CP readings for 2009, 2010, and 2011 on Buckeye line LN751.\nMultiple test point with consecutive years of P/S readings below -0.85 volts were noted. When\nquestioned regarding the situation, Buckeye’s corrosion specialist stated that no corrective actions had\nbeen taken and that they had no other testing records to prove compliance with this code section.\nAdditionally, Buckeye Maintenance Manual CP procedures require corrective remedial actions when\ncathodic protection does not meet required levels.\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nBuckeye provided a copy of the cathodic protection annual survey records to the NYSDPS inspector\nduring the inspection. Thirty-five instances of non-compliance were found as noted below:\nLine Segment Reading Date Pipe-to-Soil\nReading\nDuration\n(Days)\nLine Segment BI751CZ 1512+44: 8/3/2009 -0.506\nLine Segment BI751CZ 1512+44: 10/27/2010 -0.539 320\nLine Segment BI751CZ 1522+48 8/3/2009 -0.722\nLine Segment BI751CZ 1522+48 10/27/2010 -0.832 320\nLine Segment CZ751IX 960+16 4/27/2009 -0.749\nLine Segment CZ751IX 960+16 4/13/2010 -0.692 517\nLine Segment CZ751IX 960+16 4/15/2011 -0.774\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3269+73 6/9/2009 -0.609\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3269+73 6/11/2010 -0.78 458\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3269+73 7/13/2011 -0.541\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3322+01 6/9/2009 -0.631\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3322+01 6/11/2010 -0.82 458\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3322+01 7/13/2011 -0.631\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3399+84 6/9/2009 -0.546\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3399+84 6/11/2010 -0.637 458\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3399+84 7/13/2011 -0.501\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3402+37 6/9/2009 -0.604\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3402+37 6/11/2010 -0.65 458\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3402+37 7/13/2011 -0.523\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3492+72 6/9/2009 -0.713\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3492+72 6/11/2010 -0.84 458\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3492+72 7/13/2011 -0.789\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3875+64 6/9/2009 -0.829\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3875+64 6/11/2010 -0.723 458\nLine Segment GQ751RX 3875+64 7/13/2011 -0.814\nLine Segment IX751WA 1742+19: 8/13/2009 -0.766\nLine Segment IX751WA 1742+19: 6/28/2010 -0.807 441\nLine Segment IX751WA 1742+19: 6/13/2011 -0.709\nLine Segment IX751WA 1747+26 8/13/2009 -0.647\nLine Segment IX751WA 1747+26 No Reading listed for\n2010. Assumed reading\nwas taken 8/13/2010\n395\nLine Segment IX751WA 1747+26 6/13/2011 -0.706\nLine Segment RX751BX 2070+16 7/14/2009 -0.801\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nLine Segment RX751BX 2070+16 7/15/2010 -0.801 424\nLine Segment RX751BX 2070+16 8/5/2011 -0.762\nLine Segment RX751RQ 9+40 8/19/2009 -0.745\nLine Segment RX751RQ 9+40 8/5/2010 -0.824 403\nLine Segment RX751RQ 9+40 7/28/2011 -0.775\nLine Segment RX751RQ 741+24 8/19/2009 -0.852\nLine Segment RX751RQ 741+24 8/5/2010 -0.703 403\nLine Segment RX751RQ 741+24 7/28/2011 -0.828\nLine Segment WA751GQ 5102+45 6/29/2010 -0.835\nLine Segment WA751GQ 5102+45 6/1/2011 -0.817 103\nLine Segment WA751WX 5601+07 8/23/2010 -0.696\nLine Segment WA751WX 5601+07 8/17/2011 -0.819 26\nLine Segment WA751WX 5669+07 8/23/2010 -0.681\nLine Segment WA751WX 5669+07 8/17/2011 -0.818 26\nLine Segment WA751WX 5683+24 8/17/2009 -0.822\nLine Segment WA751WX 5683+24 8/23/2010 -0.681 385\nLine Segment WA751WX 5683+24 8/17/2011 -0.794\nLine Segment WA751WX 5934+69: 8/14/2009 -0.798\nLine Segment WA751WX 5934+69: 8/23/2010 -0.689 385\nLine Segment WA751WX 5934+69: 8/17/2011 -0.839\nLine Segment WA751WX 5991+04 8/14/2009 -0.69\nLine Segment WA751WX 5991+04 8/23/2010 -0.639 385\nLine Segment WA751WX 5991+04 8/17/2011 -0.677\nLine Segment WA751WX 6387+21 8/14/2009 -0.558\nLine Segment WA751WX 6387+21 8/17/2010 -0.435 391\nLine Segment WA751WX 6387+21 8/19/2011 -0.586\nLine Segment WX751TV 6387+98 8/12/2009 -0.611\nLine Segment WX751TV 6387+98 8/18/2010 -0.482 390\nLine Segment WX751TV 6387+98 8/19/2011 -0.519\nLine Segment WX751TV 6403+70 8/12/2009 -0.653\nLine Segment WX751TV 6403+70 8/18/2010 -0.562 390\nLine Segment WX751TV 6403+70 8/19/2011 -0.572\nLine Segment WX751TV 6415+20 8/12/2009 -0.656\nLine Segment WX751TV 6415+20 No Reading listed for\n2010. Assumed reading\nwas taken 8/12/2010\n396\nLine Segment WX751TV 6415+20 8/19/2011 -0.512\nLine Segment WX751TV 6436+95 8/12/2009 -0.652\nLine Segment WX751TV 6436+95 8/18/2010 -0.578 390\nLine Segment WX751TV 6436+95 8/19/2011 -0.548\nLine Segment WX751TV 6437+50 8/12/2009 -0.713\nLine Segment WX751TV 6437+50 8/18/2010 -0.627 390\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nLine Segment WX751TV 6437+50 8/19/2011 -0.653\nLine Segment WX751TV 6481+99 8/12/2009 -0.828\nLine Segment WX751TV 6481+99 8/18/2010 -0.672 390\nLine Segment WX751TV 6481+99 8/22/2011 -0.611\nLine Segment WX751TV 6543+30 8/18/2010 -0.7\nLine Segment WX751TV 6543+30 8/22/2011 -0.61 21\nLine Segment WX751TV 6638+92 8/18/2010 -0.841\nLine Segment WX751TV 6638+92 8/22/2011 -0.719 21\nLine Segment WX751TV 6561+03 8/18/2010 -0.788\nLine Segment WX751TV 6561+03 8/22/2011 -0.658 21\nLine Segment WX751TV 6691+39 8/18/2010 -0.786\nLine Segment WX751TV 6691+39 8/23/2011 -0.7 20\nLine Segment WX751TV 6725+30 8/18/2010 -0.812\nLine Segment WX751TV 6725+30 8/23/2011 -0.72 20\nLine Segment WX751TV 6758+40 8/12/2009 -0.814\nLine Segment WX751TV 6758+40 8/18/2010 -0.734 390\nLine Segment WX751TV 6758+40 8/23/2011 -0.713\nLine Segment WX751TV 6853+03 8/12/2009 -0.801\nLine Segment WX751TV 6853+03 8/18/2010 -0.801 390\nLine Segment WX751TV 6853+03 8/23/2011 -0.831\nLine Segment XX751BI 7917+14 6/26/2009 -0.63\nLine Segment XX751BI 7917+14 3/22/2010 -0.725 539\nLine Segment XX751BI 7917+14 4/11/2011 -0.485\nCount of Non Compliances 35\n2. § 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections, tests, and\nsafeguards are required?\n(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline from other metallic structures,\nunless you electrically interconnect and cathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as\na single unit.\nBuckeye did not electrically isolate each carrier pipe in a casing, or electrically interconnect and\ncathodically protect the carrier pipe and casing as a single unit, as required by §195.575 (a).\nBuckeye did not have records to show that testing had been performed and that the isolation is effective\nfor carrier piping in casings. NYSDPS review of Buckeye corrosion control records found consecutive\nyears of annual cathodic protection (CP) inspections with pipe-to-soil (P/S) readings for both carrier pipe\nand casing pipe to be below Buckeye’s potential difference criteria of 100 millivolt differential noted in\nBuckeye Maintenance Manual casing procedures section 2.7.1.2.\nThe NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual CP readings for 2009, 2010, and 2011 on Buckeye line LN751.\nMultiple test points with consecutive years of readings with a potential difference of 100 millivolts or less\nbetween the casing and carrier pipe were noted.\nWhen questioned regarding the situation, Buckeye’s corrosion specialist stated that no corrective actions\nhad been taken and that they had no other testing records to prove compliance with this code section.\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nAdditionally, Buckeye corrosion control procedures require corrective remedial actions, and alternate\nmethods to follow, when CP levels on carrier piping do not meet required levels because of shorted\ncasings.\nBuckeye provided a copy of the CP annual survey records to the NYSDPS inspector during the\ninspection. Five instances of non-compliance were found as noted below:\nDate of inspection 9/12/2011\nLine Segment Date of\nreading\nPipe To Soil\nreading –\nCarrier Pipe\nCasing\nReading\nDelta is < 100 mv Duration\nAN751BO 179+57 5/25/2010 -1.186 -1.136 0.050\nAN751BO 179+57 6/6/2011 -1.181 -1.185 -0.004 98\nAN751BO 315+80 5/12/2009 -1.629 -1.628 0.001\nAN751BO 315+80 5/26/2010 -1.123 -1.120 0.003 474\nAN751BO 315+80 6/8/2011 -1.459 -1.461 -0.002\nAN751BO 450+12 5/11/2009 -1.199 -1.200 -0.001\nAN751BO 450+12 5/26/2010 -1.224 -1.220 0.004 474\nAN751BO 450+12 6/8/2011 -1.197 -1.200 -0.003\nAN751BO 640+25 5/19/2010 -1.009 -1.014 -0.005\nAN751BO 640+25 5/11/2011 -0.926 -0.928 -0.002 124\nAN751BO 693+84 5/11/2009 -1.130 -1.131 -0.001\nAN751BO 693+84 5/19/2010 -1.188 -1.186 0.002 481\nAN751BO 693+84 5/11/2011 -1.155 -1.154 0.001\nCount Of Non\nCompliances\n5\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 3, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related\nseries of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocumentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be\npreliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $ 96,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $ 69,500\n2 $ 27,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item numbers 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye\nPartners, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis Notice.\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5002\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\nthat all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this\nconstitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2013-5002 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible, and please whenever\npossible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to\nByron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to\nthe Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5002\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Buckeye’s failure to take\ncorrective action for identified deficiencies in corrosion control, Buckeye must\nremediate the locations identified to bring them up to Buckeye operations and\nmaintenance requirements, but no less than in accordance with minimum Part 195\nrequirements.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Buckeye’s failure to\nelectrically isolate carrier pipe from casings, or cathodically protect both as a\nsingle unit, Buckeye must remediate the locations identified in accordance with\nBuckeye operation and maintenance requirements, but no less than in accordance\nwith minimum Part 195 requirements.\nAll documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined in\nthis order must be submitted to the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West\nTrenton, NJ 08628 within 120 days after receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 7 of 7\n\n120135002_Final Order_08292014_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 29, 2014\nMr. Clark C. Smith\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nSuite 600\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-5002\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $78,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Buckeye Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate 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. Thomas S. Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity,\nBuckeye 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2013-5002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween September 12 and 16, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the New\nYork State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye or\nRespondent), in Rochester, New York. Buckeye operates approximately 6,164 miles of\nhazardous liquid pipelines transporting petroleum products in the Eastern and Midwestern\nUnited States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated January 23, 2013, 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 violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.573(e) and 195.575(a) and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $96,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed that Respondent be required to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated February 21, 2013 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Jan. 23, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: 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\ndeficiencies in corrosion control identified during the 2009-2011 period. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that, according to its own records, Buckeye did not correct low pipe-to-soil potential\nreadings in 35 instances at specified locations that did not meet the -0.85 volt criteria used by\nBuckeye in the cathodic protection (CP) surveys it conducted during that time period.\nIn its Response, Buckeye disagreed with the allegation that it violated § 195.573(e). Respondent\nexplained that National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) Standard Practice\nSP0169-2007, incorporated into its own written operating and maintenance procedures, allowed\nthe use of three criteria alone or in combination to determine the effectiveness of CP; one of\nthese criteria utilized a 100mV polarization criteria.2 Buckeye contended that “it is not possible\nto draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the CP system based solely on the NACE -\n0.85 volt criterion.”3 Buckeye also described the ongoing upgrades it had been performing on its\nCP system since 2005, and stated that close-interval surveys were being done to target additional\nupgrades and improvements to its system.\nThe cited regulation requires that operators correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control.\nOperators that use CP systems for corrosion control must therefore monitor the CP levels and\ncorrect any deficiencies found in these levels. At the time of the inspection, the NYSDPS\ninspector obtained a 25-page document from Buckeye, entitled “Buckeye Partners, L.P. CP\nSurvey Report,” that covered the years 2009-2011.4 This document included a column with the\nheading “Structure P/S,” containing pipe-to-soil potential values suitable for measuring against\nthe -0.85 volt criterion. Upon reviewing the CP Survey Report, the NYSDPS inspector\nquestioned Buckeye’s corrosion specialist concerning the numerous test points with consecutive\nyears of readings below -0.85 volts and whether any corrective actions had been taken with\nregard to those low readings. Buckeye’s corrosion specialist acknowledged that no corrective\nactions had been taken and stated that Buckeye had no other records demonstrating compliance\nwith the regulation.5 Notably, the CP Survey Report did not include a column or columns with\npolarized values for measuring against the 100mV polarization criterion.\n2 Buckeye Partners Maintenance Manual, Section J-02.\n3 Response at 2.\n4 Violation Report, Exhibit A-1.\n5 Violation Report at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nBuckeye is correct that its written procedures allowed the use of any of the three criteria to\ndetermine the effectiveness of CP, including the 100mV polarization criterion. The fact that\nthese procedures existed, however, is not dispositive on the issue of whether Buckeye actually\nrelied on documented 100mV polarization surveys at the time it failed to take any corrective\nactions in the 2009-2011 period, despite the known low pipe-to-soil readings using the -0.85 volt\ncriterion.\nIn its Response, Buckeye attached a three-page document, entitled “CP Polarization Summary”\nand dated February 21, 2013, that included columns with values for “On,” “Off,” “Static,” and\n“Polarization.”6 Notably, this summary did not include any supporting documentation, such as\nactual field inspection records signed and dated by an individual responsible for taking such\nreadings. There is no indication that this summary is, in fact, a source document from a Buckeye\nwork management system used by its corrosion personnel at the time Buckeye failed to correct\nthe low pipe-to-soil readings.\n7 Buckeye’s corrosion specialist, who was in a position to know,\nindicated at the time of the inspection that company had no polarization surveys or other records\nfrom the 2009-2011 period to support its contention that the known low pipe-to-soil readings\nwere non-deficiencies.\n8\nNotwithstanding the complications introduced by Buckeye’s failure to produce the polarization\nreadings at the time of the inspection, OPS did not allege that Respondent used the incorrect CP\ncriteria under the circumstances. Rather, OPS alleged that Buckeye failed to correct an identified\ncorrosion control deficiency. Assuming that the CP Polarization Summary reflects polarization\nreadings taken during the 2009-2011 period, it appears to show that the 100mV criteria were met\nfor only 29 of the 35 instances specified in the Notice. Having reviewed the record, I find that\nthere is insufficient evidence to show that there was a deficiency to correct in these 29 instances.\nFor the following six instances, however, even the 100mV criteria were not met: IX751WA\n1747+26; RX751RQ 711+24; WX751TV 6387+98; WX751TV 6403+70; WX751TV 6415+20;\nand WX751TV 6436+95. Therefore, I also find that there is sufficient evidence to show that\nthere were deficiencies in these six instances that should have been corrected.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(e) insofar as it failed to correct six deficiencies in corrosion control identified during\nthe 2009-2011 period. The remaining 29 of the 35 instances cited in the Notice are hereby\nwithdrawn. This reduction from 35 instances to six will be reflected in the Assessment of\nPenalty section below.\n6 Response, Attachment 2.\n7 This document indicates that a significant number of the specified test points are deficient even under the 100mV\ncriteria.\n8 Violation Report at 2. Buckeye may well have been in violation of applicable recordkeeping requirements and\nnothing in this Final Order should be construed otherwise. However, OPS did not cite Buckeye for violating\nrecordkeeping requirements.\n\n\n\n4\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(a), which states:\n§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what\ninspections, tests, and safeguards are required?\n(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline\nfrom other metallic structures, unless you electrically interconnect and\ncathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as a single unit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(a) by failing, at five locations,\nto electrically isolate carrier pipes in casings or electrically interconnect and cathodically protect\nthe carrier pipe and casing as a single unit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that despite the\nexistence of shorted casings, indicating possible shielding of the pipe from CP and requiring\nisolation measures or other corrective action, Buckeye did not take such action.\nIn its Response, Buckeye disagreed with the allegation that it violated § 195.575(a). Respondent\nacknowledged that metallic shorts did exist between the carrier pipeline and the casing, but\ncontended that the shorts were actually the means being used to cathodically protect the pipe and\ncasing as a single unit.9 Respondent further noted that no pipe corrosion had been detected by its\nperiodic in-line inspections. Finally, Respondent provided information contending that one of\nthe five locations specified in the Notice was not, in fact, a cased crossing.\nThe regulation states that an operator must electrically isolate the carrier pipe from the casing\n“unless you electrically interconnect” the structures as a single unit. This would involve an\naffirmative act by an operator to install an interconnection, such as a cable running between the\ntwo structures, and then conducting specific testing and analysis to verify that the structures were\nbeing protected as a single unit. Letting casings become shorted over time does not constitute\ntaking action to interconnect the structures.\n10 It should also be noted that Buckeye did not\nprovide records of any technical analysis conducted at the time it decided not to clear or\ninterconnect the shorted casings indicating that dependence on the short itself to provide\nsufficient current transfer was a reliable means of cathodically protecting the pipe and casing as a\nsingle structure.11\nSection J-05 of Buckeye’s Maintenance Manual, entitled “Shorted Casing,” sets forth the\ncompany’s policies and procedures for addressing shorted casings.12 It states that a corrective\naction plan to remediate all metallically-shorted casings shall be initiated within six months of\nidentifying the short. It states that such remediation shall include one or more corrective actions,\nsuch as removing the casing, clearing the short, filling the annular space with dielectric material,\n9 Response at 3.\n10 In this case, the pipe-to-soil readings in the vicinity of the casings crossings were also low.\n11 In a Final Order issued to Buckeye dated July 27, 2012, I found Buckeye in violation of the same section of the\nregulation for failure to electrically isolate a pipeline and a casing on its PY742PL pipeline. See In the matter of\nBuckeye Partners, L.P., CPF No. 1-2011-5013 (July 27, 2012), Item 2. Therefore Buckeye was well aware of the\nrequirement.\n12 Response, Attachment 4.\n\n\n\n5\nmonitoring the casing with leak-detection equipment, or monitoring the condition of the pipeline\ninside the casing using data from in-line inspections. Notably, the procedures do not allow for\nthe short itself to be a means used to protect the pipe and casing as a single unit.\nFurthermore, with respect to Respondent’s argument that no corrosion was detected by its\nperiodic in-line inspections, this does not change the fact that Buckeye did not electrically\ninterconnect the structures or isolate the pipe by clearing the short or eliminating the metallic\ncontact. It did not fill the casing annulus with dielectric material, nor did the company provide\nany explanation for its failure to do so. In-line inspections are a basic requirement of\nmaintaining a pipeline as part of an integrity management program; conducting in-line\ninspections only shows compliance with minimum integrity management requirements and\ndetects corrosion after it occurs, as opposed to protecting the pipe from corrosion. Similarly, the\npipe-to-soil readings provided by Buckeye in its Response do not, by themselves, demonstrate\ncompliance with the cited regulation.13\nFinally, in its Response, Buckeye did provide information showing that one of the five locations\ncited in the Notice, AN751BO 315+80, was not a casing location.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.575(a) by failing to electrically isolate cased carrier pipes or electrically interconnect and\ncathodically protect the carrier pipe and casing as a single unit with respect to four of the five\ninstances cited in the Notice, but find that Buckeye was not in violation with regard to\nAN751BO 315+80, the fifth instance cited in the Notice. The fifth instance is hereby withdrawn.\nThis reduction from five instances to four will be reflected in the Assessment of Penalty section\nbelow.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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 $96,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $69,500 for Respondent’s violation of\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n13 Response, Attachment 5.\n\n\n\n6\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), for failing to correct 35 deficiencies in corrosion control that had been\nidentified during the 2009-2011 period. In its Response, Buckeye explained that it had used the\n100mV polarization criterion and therefore that it did not believe there had been any\ndeficiencies. Respondent also described its long-term efforts to upgrade its CP system, including\nadding test leads, replacing aged rectifiers and ground beds, adding new impressed-current\nsystems, and performing additional close-interval surveys.\nWith respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any failure to correct\ndeficiencies in CP has the potential to impact safety because corrosion rates can be impacted.\nRespondent is culpable for the violation, as pipeline operators are obligated to correct all CP\ndeficiencies in a timely manner. I acknowledge the long-term actions taken by Respondent to\nupgrade its corrosion control program overall, but these do not constitute, under the penalty\nassessment criteria set forth in the Violation Report, a good-faith effort to comply with the\nrequirement to correct the particular deficiencies that were present at identified locations. As\ndiscussed above, 29 of the 35 alleged instances of deficiency have been withdrawn and therefore\nI find that a partial reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation\nis warranted.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a reduced civil penalty of $52,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.575(a), for failing, at five locations, to electrically isolate cased carrier pipes or electrically\ninterconnect and cathodically protect the carrier pipe and the casing as a single unit. In its\nResponse, Buckeye acknowledged that metallic shorts existed between the pipeline and the\ncasing, but explained that it believed the shorts were actually the means being used to\ncathodically protect the pipe and casing as a single unit. Respondent also stated that it had\nmonitored the cased crossings in accordance with its procedures by conducting periodic in-line\ninspections and that no pipe corrosion had been detected by these internal inspections. Finally,\nRespondent provided information showing that one of the five locations specified in the Notice\nwas not, in fact, a cased crossing.\nWith respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any failure to isolate or\ninterconnect metallic structures has the potential to impact safety. The reason why an electrical\nisolation requirement was made part of the federal pipeline safety regulations is that to\ncathodically protect a pipeline, it is necessary to protect it from corrosion in its entirety. When a\ncasing is not electrically isolated from the carrier pipe, it can adversely affect the integrity of the\npipe by shielding CP current from the pipe and reducing the effectiveness of the CP in the\nvicinity of the casing.\nFurther, Respondent is culpable for the violation, as operators are obligated under the regulation\nto either isolate the structures or electrically interconnect them. In this case, Buckeye did not\nclear the shorts or interconnect the pipes and casings to achieve protection as a single unit. It did\nnot take any other action, such as filling the casings annulus with dielectric material, to properly\nisolate each carrier pipe nor did the company provide any explanation for why it would not have\nbeen feasible to do so. I acknowledge the in-line inspection monitoring that was conducted by\n\n\n\n7\nRespondent, but this does not constitute, under the penalty assessment criteria set forth in the\nViolation Report, a good-faith effort to comply with the isolation/interconnection requirement\nprior to the inspection. As discussed above, one of the five alleged instances of noncompliance\nhas been withdrawn and therefore I find that a partial reduction in the civil penalty amount\nproposed in the Notice for this violation is warranted.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a reduced civil penalty of $26,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(a).\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 $78,900.\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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $78,900 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 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.573(e) and 195.575(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(e) (Item 1), Respondent must remediate\nthe six locations specified above that have identified deficiencies in corrosion control\nand bring them into compliance with the applicable CP criteria.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.575(a) (Item 2), Respondent must remediate\nthe four locations specified above and bring them into compliance with the\nrequirement to electrically interconnect the structures to protect them as a single unit\nor isolate the pipe.\n\n\n\n8\n3. Submit documentation demonstrating completion of the actions required by Items\n1 and 2 above within 120 days following receipt of this Order to the Director, Eastern\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern\nRoad, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628.\n4. It is requested, (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this O","truncated":true,"body_characters":41824}