# BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120135002_Closure Letter_02112015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Closure%20Letter_02112015.pdf

120135002_Closure Letter_02112015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Closure%20Letter_02112015_text.pdf

120135002_Final Order_08292014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Final%20Order_08292014.pdf

120135002_Final Order_08292014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_Final%20Order_08292014_text.pdf

120135002_NOPV PCP PCO_01232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01232013_text.pdf

120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135002/120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013.pdf

120135002_Closure Letter_02112015_text.pdf

U.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
West Trenton, NJ 08628
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL
February 11, 2015
Thomas Collier
VP, Performance Assurance & Asser Integrity
Buckeye Partners, LP
Five Tek Park
9999 Hamilton Blvd
Breinigsville, PA 18031
CPF 1-2013-5002
Dear Mr. Collier:
On August 29, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye), a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This
Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation Buckeye provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that Buckeye has complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: Mr. Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS

120135002_NOPV PCP PCO_01232013_text.pdf

U.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
West Trenton, NJ 08628
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL
January 23, 2013
Mr. Thomas S. Collier,
VP Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity
Buckeye Partners, L.P.
Five TEK Park
9999 Hamilton Boulevard
Breinigsville, PA 18031
CPF 1-2013-5002
Dear Mr. Collier:
On September 12 - 16, 2011, an inspector from the New York State Department of Public Service
(NYSDPS), acting as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the Buckeye Partners, L.P.(Buckeye) pipeline
facilities in Rochester, NY.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:
1. § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as required by
§195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program
under §195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by §195.452(h).
Buckeye did not correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required by §195.573(a).
NYSDPS staff reviewed Buckeye corrosion records and found consecutive years of annual cathodic
protection (CP) inspections with pipe-to-soil readings that did not meet Buckeye’s criteria of -0.85 volts
pipe-to-soil (P/S).
The NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual CP readings for 2009, 2010, and 2011 on Buckeye line LN751.
Multiple test point with consecutive years of P/S readings below -0.85 volts were noted. When
questioned regarding the situation, Buckeye’s corrosion specialist stated that no corrective actions had
been taken and that they had no other testing records to prove compliance with this code section.
Additionally, Buckeye Maintenance Manual CP procedures require corrective remedial actions when
cathodic protection does not meet required levels.



CPF 1-2013-5002
Buckeye provided a copy of the cathodic protection annual survey records to the NYSDPS inspector
during the inspection. Thirty-five instances of non-compliance were found as noted below:
Line Segment Reading Date Pipe-to-Soil
Reading
Duration
(Days)
Line Segment BI751CZ 1512+44: 8/3/2009 -0.506
Line Segment BI751CZ 1512+44: 10/27/2010 -0.539 320
Line Segment BI751CZ 1522+48 8/3/2009 -0.722
Line Segment BI751CZ 1522+48 10/27/2010 -0.832 320
Line Segment CZ751IX 960+16 4/27/2009 -0.749
Line Segment CZ751IX 960+16 4/13/2010 -0.692 517
Line Segment CZ751IX 960+16 4/15/2011 -0.774
Line Segment GQ751RX 3269+73 6/9/2009 -0.609
Line Segment GQ751RX 3269+73 6/11/2010 -0.78 458
Line Segment GQ751RX 3269+73 7/13/2011 -0.541
Line Segment GQ751RX 3322+01 6/9/2009 -0.631
Line Segment GQ751RX 3322+01 6/11/2010 -0.82 458
Line Segment GQ751RX 3322+01 7/13/2011 -0.631
Line Segment GQ751RX 3399+84 6/9/2009 -0.546
Line Segment GQ751RX 3399+84 6/11/2010 -0.637 458
Line Segment GQ751RX 3399+84 7/13/2011 -0.501
Line Segment GQ751RX 3402+37 6/9/2009 -0.604
Line Segment GQ751RX 3402+37 6/11/2010 -0.65 458
Line Segment GQ751RX 3402+37 7/13/2011 -0.523
Line Segment GQ751RX 3492+72 6/9/2009 -0.713
Line Segment GQ751RX 3492+72 6/11/2010 -0.84 458
Line Segment GQ751RX 3492+72 7/13/2011 -0.789
Line Segment GQ751RX 3875+64 6/9/2009 -0.829
Line Segment GQ751RX 3875+64 6/11/2010 -0.723 458
Line Segment GQ751RX 3875+64 7/13/2011 -0.814
Line Segment IX751WA 1742+19: 8/13/2009 -0.766
Line Segment IX751WA 1742+19: 6/28/2010 -0.807 441
Line Segment IX751WA 1742+19: 6/13/2011 -0.709
Line Segment IX751WA 1747+26 8/13/2009 -0.647
Line Segment IX751WA 1747+26 No Reading listed for
2010. Assumed reading
was taken 8/13/2010
395
Line Segment IX751WA 1747+26 6/13/2011 -0.706
Line Segment RX751BX 2070+16 7/14/2009 -0.801
120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 2 of 7



CPF 1-2013-5002
Line Segment RX751BX 2070+16 7/15/2010 -0.801 424
Line Segment RX751BX 2070+16 8/5/2011 -0.762
Line Segment RX751RQ 9+40 8/19/2009 -0.745
Line Segment RX751RQ 9+40 8/5/2010 -0.824 403
Line Segment RX751RQ 9+40 7/28/2011 -0.775
Line Segment RX751RQ 741+24 8/19/2009 -0.852
Line Segment RX751RQ 741+24 8/5/2010 -0.703 403
Line Segment RX751RQ 741+24 7/28/2011 -0.828
Line Segment WA751GQ 5102+45 6/29/2010 -0.835
Line Segment WA751GQ 5102+45 6/1/2011 -0.817 103
Line Segment WA751WX 5601+07 8/23/2010 -0.696
Line Segment WA751WX 5601+07 8/17/2011 -0.819 26
Line Segment WA751WX 5669+07 8/23/2010 -0.681
Line Segment WA751WX 5669+07 8/17/2011 -0.818 26
Line Segment WA751WX 5683+24 8/17/2009 -0.822
Line Segment WA751WX 5683+24 8/23/2010 -0.681 385
Line Segment WA751WX 5683+24 8/17/2011 -0.794
Line Segment WA751WX 5934+69: 8/14/2009 -0.798
Line Segment WA751WX 5934+69: 8/23/2010 -0.689 385
Line Segment WA751WX 5934+69: 8/17/2011 -0.839
Line Segment WA751WX 5991+04 8/14/2009 -0.69
Line Segment WA751WX 5991+04 8/23/2010 -0.639 385
Line Segment WA751WX 5991+04 8/17/2011 -0.677
Line Segment WA751WX 6387+21 8/14/2009 -0.558
Line Segment WA751WX 6387+21 8/17/2010 -0.435 391
Line Segment WA751WX 6387+21 8/19/2011 -0.586
Line Segment WX751TV 6387+98 8/12/2009 -0.611
Line Segment WX751TV 6387+98 8/18/2010 -0.482 390
Line Segment WX751TV 6387+98 8/19/2011 -0.519
Line Segment WX751TV 6403+70 8/12/2009 -0.653
Line Segment WX751TV 6403+70 8/18/2010 -0.562 390
Line Segment WX751TV 6403+70 8/19/2011 -0.572
Line Segment WX751TV 6415+20 8/12/2009 -0.656
Line Segment WX751TV 6415+20 No Reading listed for
2010. Assumed reading
was taken 8/12/2010
396
Line Segment WX751TV 6415+20 8/19/2011 -0.512
Line Segment WX751TV 6436+95 8/12/2009 -0.652
Line Segment WX751TV 6436+95 8/18/2010 -0.578 390
Line Segment WX751TV 6436+95 8/19/2011 -0.548
Line Segment WX751TV 6437+50 8/12/2009 -0.713
Line Segment WX751TV 6437+50 8/18/2010 -0.627 390
120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 3 of 7



CPF 1-2013-5002
Line Segment WX751TV 6437+50 8/19/2011 -0.653
Line Segment WX751TV 6481+99 8/12/2009 -0.828
Line Segment WX751TV 6481+99 8/18/2010 -0.672 390
Line Segment WX751TV 6481+99 8/22/2011 -0.611
Line Segment WX751TV 6543+30 8/18/2010 -0.7
Line Segment WX751TV 6543+30 8/22/2011 -0.61 21
Line Segment WX751TV 6638+92 8/18/2010 -0.841
Line Segment WX751TV 6638+92 8/22/2011 -0.719 21
Line Segment WX751TV 6561+03 8/18/2010 -0.788
Line Segment WX751TV 6561+03 8/22/2011 -0.658 21
Line Segment WX751TV 6691+39 8/18/2010 -0.786
Line Segment WX751TV 6691+39 8/23/2011 -0.7 20
Line Segment WX751TV 6725+30 8/18/2010 -0.812
Line Segment WX751TV 6725+30 8/23/2011 -0.72 20
Line Segment WX751TV 6758+40 8/12/2009 -0.814
Line Segment WX751TV 6758+40 8/18/2010 -0.734 390
Line Segment WX751TV 6758+40 8/23/2011 -0.713
Line Segment WX751TV 6853+03 8/12/2009 -0.801
Line Segment WX751TV 6853+03 8/18/2010 -0.801 390
Line Segment WX751TV 6853+03 8/23/2011 -0.831
Line Segment XX751BI 7917+14 6/26/2009 -0.63
Line Segment XX751BI 7917+14 3/22/2010 -0.725 539
Line Segment XX751BI 7917+14 4/11/2011 -0.485
Count of Non Compliances 35
2. § 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections, tests, and
safeguards are required?
(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline from other metallic structures,
unless you electrically interconnect and cathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as
a single unit.
Buckeye did not electrically isolate each carrier pipe in a casing, or electrically interconnect and
cathodically protect the carrier pipe and casing as a single unit, as required by §195.575 (a).
Buckeye did not have records to show that testing had been performed and that the isolation is effective
for carrier piping in casings. NYSDPS review of Buckeye corrosion control records found consecutive
years of annual cathodic protection (CP) inspections with pipe-to-soil (P/S) readings for both carrier pipe
and casing pipe to be below Buckeye’s potential difference criteria of 100 millivolt differential noted in
Buckeye Maintenance Manual casing procedures section 2.7.1.2.
The NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual CP readings for 2009, 2010, and 2011 on Buckeye line LN751.
Multiple test points with consecutive years of readings with a potential difference of 100 millivolts or less
between the casing and carrier pipe were noted.
When questioned regarding the situation, Buckeye’s corrosion specialist stated that no corrective actions
had been taken and that they had no other testing records to prove compliance with this code section.
120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 4 of 7



CPF 1-2013-5002
Additionally, Buckeye corrosion control procedures require corrective remedial actions, and alternate
methods to follow, when CP levels on carrier piping do not meet required levels because of shorted
casings.
Buckeye provided a copy of the CP annual survey records to the NYSDPS inspector during the
inspection. Five instances of non-compliance were found as noted below:
Date of inspection 9/12/2011
Line Segment Date of
reading
Pipe To Soil
reading –
Carrier Pipe
Casing
Reading
Delta is < 100 mv Duration
AN751BO 179+57 5/25/2010 -1.186 -1.136 0.050
AN751BO 179+57 6/6/2011 -1.181 -1.185 -0.004 98
AN751BO 315+80 5/12/2009 -1.629 -1.628 0.001
AN751BO 315+80 5/26/2010 -1.123 -1.120 0.003 474
AN751BO 315+80 6/8/2011 -1.459 -1.461 -0.002
AN751BO 450+12 5/11/2009 -1.199 -1.200 -0.001
AN751BO 450+12 5/26/2010 -1.224 -1.220 0.004 474
AN751BO 450+12 6/8/2011 -1.197 -1.200 -0.003
AN751BO 640+25 5/19/2010 -1.009 -1.014 -0.005
AN751BO 640+25 5/11/2011 -0.926 -0.928 -0.002 124
AN751BO 693+84 5/11/2009 -1.130 -1.131 -0.001
AN751BO 693+84 5/19/2010 -1.188 -1.186 0.002 481
AN751BO 693+84 5/11/2011 -1.155 -1.154 0.001
Count Of Non
Compliances
5
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per
violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of
violations. For violations occurring prior to January 3, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed
$100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related
series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be
preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $ 96,500 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $ 69,500
2 $ 27,000
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item numbers 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye
Partners, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of
this Notice.
120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 5 of 7



CPF 1-2013-5002
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised
that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly
available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential
treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a
second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment
redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential
treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this
constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further
notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2013-5002 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible, and please whenever
possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to
Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to
the Eastern Region Office.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 6 of 7



CPF 1-2013-5002
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye) a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Buckeye’s failure to take
corrective action for identified deficiencies in corrosion control, Buckeye must
remediate the locations identified to bring them up to Buckeye operations and
maintenance requirements, but no less than in accordance with minimum Part 195
requirements.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Buckeye’s failure to
electrically isolate carrier pipe from casings, or cathodically protect both as a
single unit, Buckeye must remediate the locations identified in accordance with
Buckeye operation and maintenance requirements, but no less than in accordance
with minimum Part 195 requirements.
All documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined in
this order must be submitted to the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West
Trenton, NJ 08628 within 120 days after receipt of the Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit
the total to Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two
categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,
studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and
other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
120135002_NOPV_PCP_PCO_01232013 Page 7 of 7

120135002_Final Order_08292014_text.pdf

AUGUST 29, 2014
Mr. Clark C. Smith
President & Chief Executive Officer
Buckeye Partners, LP
One Greenway Plaza
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77046
Re: CPF No. 1-2013-5002
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $78,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by Buckeye Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment
terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the
date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, OPS
Mr. Thomas S. Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity,
Buckeye Partners, LP
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Buckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2013-5002
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between September 12 and 16, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the New
York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye or
Respondent), in Rochester, New York. Buckeye operates approximately 6,164 miles of
hazardous liquid pipelines transporting petroleum products in the Eastern and Midwestern
United States.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated January 23, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Buckeye had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.573(e) and 195.575(a) and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $96,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed that Respondent be required to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Buckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated February 21, 2013 (Response). The company
contested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore
has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Jan. 23, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) …
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in
corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency
involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,
you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct
deficiencies in corrosion control identified during the 2009-2011 period. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that, according to its own records, Buckeye did not correct low pipe-to-soil potential
readings in 35 instances at specified locations that did not meet the -0.85 volt criteria used by
Buckeye in the cathodic protection (CP) surveys it conducted during that time period.
In its Response, Buckeye disagreed with the allegation that it violated § 195.573(e). Respondent
explained that National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) Standard Practice
SP0169-2007, incorporated into its own written operating and maintenance procedures, allowed
the use of three criteria alone or in combination to determine the effectiveness of CP; one of
these criteria utilized a 100mV polarization criteria.2 Buckeye contended that “it is not possible
to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the CP system based solely on the NACE -
0.85 volt criterion.”3 Buckeye also described the ongoing upgrades it had been performing on its
CP system since 2005, and stated that close-interval surveys were being done to target additional
upgrades and improvements to its system.
The cited regulation requires that operators correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control.
Operators that use CP systems for corrosion control must therefore monitor the CP levels and
correct any deficiencies found in these levels. At the time of the inspection, the NYSDPS
inspector obtained a 25-page document from Buckeye, entitled “Buckeye Partners, L.P. CP
Survey Report,” that covered the years 2009-2011.4 This document included a column with the
heading “Structure P/S,” containing pipe-to-soil potential values suitable for measuring against
the -0.85 volt criterion. Upon reviewing the CP Survey Report, the NYSDPS inspector
questioned Buckeye’s corrosion specialist concerning the numerous test points with consecutive
years of readings below -0.85 volts and whether any corrective actions had been taken with
regard to those low readings. Buckeye’s corrosion specialist acknowledged that no corrective
actions had been taken and stated that Buckeye had no other records demonstrating compliance
with the regulation.5 Notably, the CP Survey Report did not include a column or columns with
polarized values for measuring against the 100mV polarization criterion.
2 Buckeye Partners Maintenance Manual, Section J-02.
3 Response at 2.
4 Violation Report, Exhibit A-1.
5 Violation Report at 2.



3
Buckeye is correct that its written procedures allowed the use of any of the three criteria to
determine the effectiveness of CP, including the 100mV polarization criterion. The fact that
these procedures existed, however, is not dispositive on the issue of whether Buckeye actually
relied on documented 100mV polarization surveys at the time it failed to take any corrective
actions in the 2009-2011 period, despite the known low pipe-to-soil readings using the -0.85 volt
criterion.
In its Response, Buckeye attached a three-page document, entitled “CP Polarization Summary”
and dated February 21, 2013, that included columns with values for “On,” “Off,” “Static,” and
“Polarization.”6 Notably, this summary did not include any supporting documentation, such as
actual field inspection records signed and dated by an individual responsible for taking such
readings. There is no indication that this summary is, in fact, a source document from a Buckeye
work management system used by its corrosion personnel at the time Buckeye failed to correct
the low pipe-to-soil readings.
7 Buckeye’s corrosion specialist, who was in a position to know,
indicated at the time of the inspection that company had no polarization surveys or other records
from the 2009-2011 period to support its contention that the known low pipe-to-soil readings
were non-deficiencies.
8
Notwithstanding the complications introduced by Buckeye’s failure to produce the polarization
readings at the time of the inspection, OPS did not allege that Respondent used the incorrect CP
criteria under the circumstances. Rather, OPS alleged that Buckeye failed to correct an identified
corrosion control deficiency. Assuming that the CP Polarization Summary reflects polarization
readings taken during the 2009-2011 period, it appears to show that the 100mV criteria were met
for only 29 of the 35 instances specified in the Notice. Having reviewed the record, I find that
there is insufficient evidence to show that there was a deficiency to correct in these 29 instances.
For the following six instances, however, even the 100mV criteria were not met: IX751WA
1747+26; RX751RQ 711+24; WX751TV 6387+98; WX751TV 6403+70; WX751TV 6415+20;
and WX751TV 6436+95. Therefore, I also find that there is sufficient evidence to show that
there were deficiencies in these six instances that should have been corrected.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(e) insofar as it failed to correct six deficiencies in corrosion control identified during
the 2009-2011 period. The remaining 29 of the 35 instances cited in the Notice are hereby
withdrawn. This reduction from 35 instances to six will be reflected in the Assessment of
Penalty section below.
6 Response, Attachment 2.
7 This document indicates that a significant number of the specified test points are deficient even under the 100mV
criteria.
8 Violation Report at 2. Buckeye may well have been in violation of applicable recordkeeping requirements and
nothing in this Final Order should be construed otherwise. However, OPS did not cite Buckeye for violating
recordkeeping requirements.



4
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(a), which states:
§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what
inspections, tests, and safeguards are required?
(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline
from other metallic structures, unless you electrically interconnect and
cathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as a single unit.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(a) by failing, at five locations,
to electrically isolate carrier pipes in casings or electrically interconnect and cathodically protect
the carrier pipe and casing as a single unit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that despite the
existence of shorted casings, indicating possible shielding of the pipe from CP and requiring
isolation measures or other corrective action, Buckeye did not take such action.
In its Response, Buckeye disagreed with the allegation that it violated § 195.575(a). Respondent
acknowledged that metallic shorts did exist between the carrier pipeline and the casing, but
contended that the shorts were actually the means being used to cathodically protect the pipe and
casing as a single unit.9 Respondent further noted that no pipe corrosion had been detected by its
periodic in-line inspections. Finally, Respondent provided information contending that one of
the five locations specified in the Notice was not, in fact, a cased crossing.
The regulation states that an operator must electrically isolate the carrier pipe from the casing
“unless you electrically interconnect” the structures as a single unit. This would involve an
affirmative act by an operator to install an interconnection, such as a cable running between the
two structures, and then conducting specific testing and analysis to verify that the structures were
being protected as a single unit. Letting casings become shorted over time does not constitute
taking action to interconnect the structures.
10 It should also be noted that Buckeye did not
provide records of any technical analysis conducted at the time it decided not to clear or
interconnect the shorted casings indicating that dependence on the short itself to provide
sufficient current transfer was a reliable means of cathodically protecting the pipe and casing as a
single structure.11
Section J-05 of Buckeye’s Maintenance Manual, entitled “Shorted Casing,” sets forth the
company’s policies and procedures for addressing shorted casings.12 It states that a corrective
action plan to remediate all metallically-shorted casings shall be initiated within six months of
identifying the short. It states that such remediation shall include one or more corrective actions,
such as removing the casing, clearing the short, filling the annular space with dielectric material,
9 Response at 3.
10 In this case, the pipe-to-soil readings in the vicinity of the casings crossings were also low.
11 In a Final Order issued to Buckeye dated July 27, 2012, I found Buckeye in violation of the same section of the
regulation for failure to electrically isolate a pipeline and a casing on its PY742PL pipeline. See In the matter of
Buckeye Partners, L.P., CPF No. 1-2011-5013 (July 27, 2012), Item 2. Therefore Buckeye was well aware of the
requirement.
12 Response, Attachment 4.



5
monitoring the casing with leak-detection equipment, or monitoring the condition of the pipeline
inside the casing using data from in-line inspections. Notably, the procedures do not allow for
the short itself to be a means used to protect the pipe and casing as a single unit.
Furthermore, with respect to Respondent’s argument that no corrosion was detected by its
periodic in-line inspections, this does not change the fact that Buckeye did not electrically
interconnect the structures or isolate the pipe by clearing the short or eliminating the metallic
contact. It did not fill the casing annulus with dielectric material, nor did the company provide
any explanation for its failure to do so. In-line inspections are a basic requirement of
maintaining a pipeline as part of an integrity management program; conducting in-line
inspections only shows compliance with minimum integrity management requirements and
detects corrosion after it occurs, as opposed to protecting the pipe from corrosion. Similarly, the
pipe-to-soil readings provided by Buckeye in its Response do not, by themselves, demonstrate
compliance with the cited regulation.13
Finally, in its Response, Buckeye did provide information showing that one of the five locations
cited in the Notice, AN751BO 315+80, was not a casing location.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.575(a) by failing to electrically isolate cased carrier pipes or electrically interconnect and
cathodically protect the carrier pipe and casing as a single unit with respect to four of the five
instances cited in the Notice, but find that Buckeye was not in violation with regard to
AN751BO 315+80, the fifth instance cited in the Notice. The fifth instance is hereby withdrawn.
This reduction from five instances to four will be reflected in the Assessment of Penalty section
below.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $96,500 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $69,500 for Respondent’s violation of
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
13 Response, Attachment 5.



6
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), for failing to correct 35 deficiencies in corrosion control that had been
identified during the 2009-2011 period. In its Response, Buckeye explained that it had used the
100mV polarization criterion and therefore that it did not believe there had been any
deficiencies. Respondent also described its long-term efforts to upgrade its CP system, including
adding test leads, replacing aged rectifiers and ground beds, adding new impressed-current
systems, and performing additional close-interval surveys.
With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any failure to correct
deficiencies in CP has the potential to impact safety because corrosion rates can be impacted.
Respondent is culpable for the violation, as pipeline operators are obligated to correct all CP
deficiencies in a timely manner. I acknowledge the long-term actions taken by Respondent to
upgrade its corrosion control program overall, but these do not constitute, under the penalty
assessment criteria set forth in the Violation Report, a good-faith effort to comply with the
requirement to correct the particular deficiencies that were present at identified locations. As
discussed above, 29 of the 35 alleged instances of deficiency have been withdrawn and therefore
I find that a partial reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation
is warranted.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $52,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.575(a), for failing, at five locations, to electrically isolate cased carrier pipes or electrically
interconnect and cathodically protect the carrier pipe and the casing as a single unit. In its
Response, Buckeye acknowledged that metallic shorts existed between the pipeline and the
casing, but explained that it believed the shorts were actually the means being used to
cathodically protect the pipe and casing as a single unit. Respondent also stated that it had
monitored the cased crossings in accordance with its procedures by conducting periodic in-line
inspections and that no pipe corrosion had been detected by these internal inspections. Finally,
Respondent provided information showing that one of the five locations specified in the Notice
was not, in fact, a cased crossing.
With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any failure to isolate or
interconnect metallic structures has the potential to impact safety. The reason why an electrical
isolation requirement was made part of the federal pipeline safety regulations is that to
cathodically protect a pipeline, it is necessary to protect it from corrosion in its entirety. When a
casing is not electrically isolated from the carrier pipe, it can adversely affect the integrity of the
pipe by shielding CP current from the pipe and reducing the effectiveness of the CP in the
vicinity of the casing.
Further, Respondent is culpable for the violation, as operators are obligated under the regulation
to either isolate the structures or electrically interconnect them. In this case, Buckeye did not
clear the shorts or interconnect the pipes and casings to achieve protection as a single unit. It did
not take any other action, such as filling the casings annulus with dielectric material, to properly
isolate each carrier pipe nor did the company provide any explanation for why it would not have
been feasible to do so. I acknowledge the in-line inspection monitoring that was conducted by



7
Respondent, but this does not constitute, under the penalty assessment criteria set forth in the
Violation Report, a good-faith effort to comply with the isolation/interconnection requirement
prior to the inspection. As discussed above, one of the five alleged instances of noncompliance
has been withdrawn and therefore I find that a partial reduction in the civil penalty amount
proposed in the Notice for this violation is warranted.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $26,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(a).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $78,900.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $78,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.573(e) and 195.575(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,
Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety
regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(e) (Item 1), Respondent must remediate
the six locations specified above that have identified deficiencies in corrosion control
and bring them into compliance with the applicable CP criteria.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.575(a) (Item 2), Respondent must remediate
the four locations specified above and bring them into compliance with the
requirement to electrically interconnect the structures to protect them as a single unit
or isolate the pipe.



8
3. Submit documentation demonstrating completion of the actions required by Items
1 and 2 above within 120 days following receipt of this Order to the Director, Eastern
Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern
Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628.
4. It is requested, (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this O
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 41824