{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120135006","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-05-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(f)(3), 195.581(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120135006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(f)(3),  195.581(a). The case was opened on 2013-05-06 and is reported as closed as of 2014-04-21. Proposed civil penalty: $418,700. Assessed civil penalty: $290,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120135006_Closure Letter_04212014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_Closure%20Letter_04212014.pdf\n\n120135006_Closure Letter_04212014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_Closure%20Letter_04212014_text.pdf\n\n120135006_Final Order_02042014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_Final%20Order_02042014.pdf\n\n120135006_Final Order_02042014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_Final%20Order_02042014_text.pdf\n\n120135006_NOPV PCP PCO_05062013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05062013.pdf\n\n120135006_NOPV PCP PCO_05062013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05062013_text.pdf\n\n120135006_Operator Response_06052013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135006/120135006_Operator%20Response_06052013.pdf\n\n120135006_NOPV PCP PCO_05062013_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\nUPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nMay 6, 2013\nThomas Scott Collier\nVice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2013-5006\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn May 21, 2010, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, initiated\nan investigation of an accident that occurred on Buckeye Partners, L.P.’s (Buckeye) pipe, designated Line\nLZ601XX, in Linden, New Jersey, on May 20, 2010. The accident involved a release of refined\npetroleum and resulted in property damage.\nLine LZ601XX is a part of Buckeye’s “Linden to NY State Line” pipeline system that consists of two 12\ninch diameter, 0.25 inch wall thickness pipelines both 32 miles long, that delivers refined petroleum\nproducts such as diesel, fuel oil, kerosene and jet fuel to JFK Airport, LaGuardia Airport and other\nshippers in the Long Island, New York area. The maximum operating pressure of Line LZ601XX is\n1,200 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The pipe is coated with an external coal tar coating and has\nan impressed current cathodic protection system.\nOn May 20, 2010, Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) received a call from a member of the public\nabout a puddle of oil near Grasseli Road and South Wood Avenue in Linden, New Jersey. Colonial\ncontacted Buckeye since both operators had pipelines in that area. International-Matex Tank Terminal,\nInc. (IMTT) was contacted also, for the same reason. Buckeye notified the National Response Center\n(NRC)1 that it, along with Colonial and IMTT, were investigating a pipeline leak in the vicinity of that\narea.\n1 NRC Report # 941049.\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5006\nBuckeye dispatched its personnel to that area to determine whether their pipe was leaking. When\nBuckeye personnel arrived on-site, they determined that their pipe, Line LZ601XX, had a pinhole leak.\nLine LZ601XX had been shut down, with product in it, for maintenance prior to the accident. The\nestimated pressure at the point and time of the accident was 282 psig. An estimated one (1) barrel of\nrefined petroleum product was released from the pipe, approximately 1,100 feet east of the New Jersey\nTurnpike. The spill contaminated the soil and the surface water in Piles Creek. Buckeye took emergency\ncontainment measures.\nThis accident occurred in an area surrounded by industrial facilities. This accident also occurred in an\narea that is identified as a high population area2 and unusually sensitive area.3\nOn June 17, 2010, Buckeye filed an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1(Accident Report)4 with\nPHMSA.\nAs a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolations are:\n1. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what coating\nmaterial may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion.\n(c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces, you need\nnot protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you demonstrate by test,\ninvestigation, or experience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline that corrosion\nwill-\n(1) Only be a light surface oxide; or\n(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled inspection.\nBuckeye failed to protect the soil-to-air interface of its Line LZ601XX against atmospheric corrosion. As\na result, external corrosion occurred at the soil-air-interface of Line LZ601XX and the pipe ultimately\nraptured.\nPrior to the accident, on August 19, 2008, Buckeye performed a visual inspection at the soil-to-air\ninterface of Line LZ601XX, which was documented in Visual Inspection of Normally Exposed Pipe. This\ninspection record, in the “CONDITION OF COATING: Remarks” section, noted that the “[soil-to-air]\ninterface on both sides of both lines needs to . . . be repaired” and that “[s]evere coating disbondment\n[was present].” Despite the fact that this inspection found deteriorated coating conditions and indicated\nthat repair to the soil-to-air interface was needed, at the time of PHMSA’s accident investigation,\nBuckeye could not provide any records indicating Buckeye performed any repairs as a result of this\ninspection.\n2 §195.450 Definitions.\nThe following definitions apply to this section and §195.452: . . .\n(2) A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined and delineated by the Census Bureau, that\ncontains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile;\n3 §195.450 Definitions.\nThe following definitions apply to this section and §195.452: . . .\n(4) An unusually sensitive area, as defined in §195.6.\n4 This Notice refers to Buckeye’s Final Accident Report DOT Form 7000-1, last revision date: August 5, 2011.\n120135006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05062013 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5006\nAccording to Buckeye’s atmospheric corrosion procedures that were in effect at the time, Maintenance\nManual, J-4 – Visual Pipe Inspection, visual inspections of normally exposed pipes designed to span\ncreeks were done once a year.\n5 Consequently, following the August 19, 2008 inspection described above,\nBuckeye next inspected this location on August 1, 2009. However, despite the findings of the previous\ninspection and the fact that there was no evidence of repairs since the previous inspection, the record for\nthe August 1, 2009 inspection noted no problems with the soil-to-air interface and there was no mention\nof severe coating disbondment.\nOn May 20, 2010, Buckeye’s pipe, Line LZ601XX, leaked at this soil-to-air interface.\nThe Accident Report confirmed that there was a pinhole leak at the soil-to-air interface of Line LZ601XX\nat mile post (MP) 90+13. The Accident Report also stated that the apparent cause of the accident was\nexternal corrosion.6\nBuckeye sent the failed pipe segment to Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. (DNV) for a metallurgical\nanalysis. DNV’s final report7 established that the leak occurred in an area of disbonded coating where the\npipeline transitioned from above ground to buried service. The report concluded that “the pipe leaked at a\n0.5-inch crack that formed in a region of deep external corrosion.” The report also stated that “the\nremaining wall thickness adjacent to the crack was approximately 0.02 inches”, or 8%.\nDuring the accident investigation, Buckeye’s compliance manager for the Linden facility stated that after\nthe 2008 visual inspection, Buckeye developed a project that was supposed to address repair work to this\nsoil-to-air interface. The project was scheduled to be completed in mid-2010. The PHMSA inspector\nrequested that Buckeye provide documentation demonstrating that the soil-to-air interface at this location\nwas remediated. Buckeye was unable to provide any records demonstrating that these repairs were made.\nBased on the foregoing evidence, Buckeye failed to protect the soil-to-air interface of its Line LZ601XX\nagainst atmospheric corrosion from the time it performed the visual inspection and noted severe coating\ndisbondment on August 19, 2008.\n2. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity management\nprogram begins with the initial framework. An operator must continually change the\nprogram to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity\nassessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences\nof a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at minimum, each of\nthe following elements in its written integrity management program:\n(1) . . .\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the integrity of the entire\npipeline and the consequences of a failure (see paragraph (g) of this section);\nPrior to August 27, 2010, Buckeye did not include the element of an analysis that integrates all available\ninformation about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure in its written\nintegrity management program, as required by §195.452(f)(3). Section 195.452(f)(3) refers to section\n5 Maintenance Manual, J-4-Visual Pipe Inspection Issued: 4/08 and 6/09, references Comprehensive Scheduling\nChart- Regulatory Inspections (Maintenance Manual Section D-01, Ex. A), Normally Exposed Spans (pipeline) . . .\n1 Time/Yr.\n6 Accident Report, at 6.\n7 Det Norske Veritas, Final Report, Metallurgical Analysis of Leak on 12-Inch Diameter Pipeline (May 20, 2010),\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\n120135006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05062013 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5006\n195.452(g) which itemizes the information that an operator must analyze.8 Buckeye’s written integrity\nmanagement program did not provide an analysis process to correlate in-line inspection (ILI) indications\nwith other sources of data.\nDuring the accident investigation, a PHMSA inspector requested a copy of Buckeye’s written integrity\nmanagement program that defined how it would assess anomalies that have been identified in an ILI\nreport. Buckeye provided the procedure, Data Integration Procedure, Buckeye Partners, L.P. (August\n27, 2010). This procedure is inadequate because it fails to specify that data collected from inspections,\ntests, surveillance and patrols is used to make a decision on the integrity of its pipeline (e.g. atmospheric\ncorrosion inspection results).9 The PHMSA inspector then requested the version prior to August 27,\n2010. Buckeye was unable to provide a previous version of the procedure. Buckeye’s compliance\nmanager for the Linden facility, stated that the “Data Integration procedure developed over time up to the\nAugust 27, 2010 official document.”\nTherefore, Buckeye did not have procedures that addressed §195.452(f)(3) prior to August 27, 2010.\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 violations.\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 violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 3, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$418,700 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $290,000\n2 $128,700\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2 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.\n8 195.452(g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment\n(paragraph (j) of this section), an operator must analyze all available information about the integrity of the entire\npipeline and the consequences of a failure. This information includes:\n(1) Information critical to determining the potential for, and preventing, damage due to excavation, including\ncurrent and planned damage prevention activities, and development or planned development along the pipeline\nsegment;\n(2) Data gathered through the integrity assessment required under this section;\n(3) Data gathered in conjunction with other inspections, tests, surveillance and patrols required by this Part,\nincluding, corrosion control monitoring and cathodic protection surveys; and\n(4) Information about how a failure would affect the high consequence area, such as location of the water intake.\n9 The information in such an analysis must include data gathered in conjunction with other inspections, tests,\nsurveillance and patrols required by Part 195, including, corrosion control monitoring and cathodic protection\nsurveys, as required by §195.452(g)(3).\n120135006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05062013 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5006\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. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30\ndays of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820\nBear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2013-5006 on each\ndocument you submit, and please whenever possible, provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format.\nSmaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied\nby the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120135006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05062013 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5006\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. With respect to Item 1 of the Notice, Buckeye must amend its corrosion control\nprocedures to give detailed instructions for inspections of pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, particularly at soil-to air interfaces,\nunder thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash\nzones, at deck penetrations and in spans over water, in accordance with\n§195.583(b). Buckeye must submit the amended procedure within sixty (60) days\nof receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to Item 2 of the Notice, Buckeye must amend its written integrity\nmanagement program for its facility in Linden, New Jersey to include a process to\nanalyze all available information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the\nconsequences of a failure, as prescribed in §195.452(f)(3). Buckeye must submit\nthe amended procedures within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Final Order.\n3. All submissions must be sent to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer\nto CPF 1-2013-5006 on each document you submit.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120135006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05062013 Page 6 of 6\n\n120135006_Final Order_02042014_text.pdf\n\nFEBRUARY 4, 2014\nMr. Clark C. Smith\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-5006\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 $290,000, and specifies actions that need to be\ntaken by Buckeye Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Thomas Scott 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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2013-5006\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 21, 2010, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), initiated an investigation of an accident that occurred on May 20, 2010, along Buckeye\nPartners, LP’s (Buckeye or Respondent) pipeline, designated as Line LZ601XX (Line LZ601XX\nor Pipeline), in Linden, New Jersey. The accident involved a release of refined petroleum\nthrough a pinhole leak. A total of one barrel of petroleum leaked from the Pipeline and resulted\nin property damage to a High Consequence Area (HCA).\n1 Buckeye owns and operates\napproximately 6,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines in the Northeast and Upper Midwest\nregions.2\nThe PHMSA investigation revealed that almost two years prior to the leak, on August 18, 2008,\nBuckeye had visually inspected the Pipeline. The inspector noted that the soil-to-air interface on\nLine LZ601XX needed to be repaired and that there was severe coating disbondment. There is\nno record that Buckeye repaired the Pipeline, as recommended. Instead, the Pipeline leaked at\nthe same location previously noted by the Buckeye inspector, in an area of “deep external\ncorrosion.”3\nAs a result of the OPS investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 6, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Buckeye had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.581(a) and 195.451(f) and\n1 The term “High Consequence Area” is defined as a commercially navigable waterway, a high population area, an\nother populated area, or an unusually sensitive area (e.g., a drinking water or ecological resource area). See\n49 C.F.R. § 195.450.\n2 See http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx (last accessed on September 6, 2013).\n3 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 6, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 3 (citing Det\nNorske Veritas, Final Report, Metallurgical Analysis of Leak on 12-inch Diameter Pipeline (May 20, 2010)).\n\n\n\n2\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $418,700 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 June 5, 2013 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations contained in Item 1 of the Notice, but requested that the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced. Buckeye did contest Item 2 of the Notice and requested that the proposed\ncivil penalty be removed or reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.581, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a), which states:\n§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric\ncorrosion and what coating material may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this\nsection.\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric\ncorrosion.\n(c) Except portions of pipelines in off-shore splash zones or soil-to-air\ninterfaces, you need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline\nfor which you demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate\nto the environment of the pipeline that corrosion will –\n(1) Only be a light surface oxide; or\n(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next\nscheduled inspection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to clean and coat\neach pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Buckeye failed to protect the soil-to-air interface of Line LZ601XX against\natmospheric corrosion, from August 19, 2008, until May 20, 2010. It alleged that during a\ncompany inspection on August 19, 2008, the Buckeye inspector’s report noted that severe\ncoating disbondment was present and that the Pipeline needed repair on both sides. The Notice\nalleged that Buckeye never repaired the noted defects, which eventually led to the accident on\nMay 20, 2010. The leak occurred approximately 33 months after the 2008 inspection, in the\nsame location that Buckeye was aware needed repair.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation but contended that the proposed penalty\nwas too high. Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to protect its line from atmospheric corrosion, by cleaning and\ncoating each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Buckeye’s\narguments regarding the proposed penalty will be addressed below in the Assessment of Penalty\n\n\n\n3\nsection.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn integrity management program begins with the initial framework.\nAn operator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity\nassessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and\nevaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area.\nAn operator must include, at minimum, each of the following elements\nin its written integrity management program:\n(1) . . .\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see\nparagraph (g) of this section); . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) by failing to have, prior to\nAugust 27, 2010, an integrity management program (IMP) that included a process for\nconducting an analysis that integrated all available information about the integrity of Buckeye’s\nentire pipeline, including Line LZ601XX, and the consequences of a failure, as detailed in\nparagraph (g) of § 195.452. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye’s IMP failed to\ninclude an analysis process that correlated in-line inspection (ILI) indications with other relevant\ndata to make decisions regarding the integrity of the line. During the PHMSA inspection,\nBuckeye personnel had provided a copy of its procedure, Data Integration Procedure, dated\nAugust 27, 2010, but was unable to provide any written procedure in effect prior that date.\nIn its Response, Buckeye contended that it did have an information analysis procedure in place\nas part of its January 2010 IMP Plan, specifically, Section 10 – Continual Evaluation, and\nprovided a copy of that earlier version, that would have been in effect as of the date of the\naccident.\nUpon reviewing Section 10 – Continual Evaluation, of Buckeye’s January 2010 IMP Plan, I find\nthat this earlier version does include an analysis process designed to correlate ILI indications\nwith other relevant data to make decisions regarding the integrity of the line and that it was in\neffect prior to August 27, 2010. Therefore, I hereby order that Item 2, along with its related\npenalty and corrective action, be withdrawn.\n\n\n\n4\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 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 $418,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $290,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.581, for failing to protect Line LZ601XX from atmospheric corrosion, an\nomission that was a causal factor in the March 20, 2010 accident. As noted above, Buckeye did\nnot contest this allegation of violation but sought a reduction in the penalty amount.\nBuckeye contends that the penalty should be limited to $100,000, the statutory limit for what the\ncompany asserts is, at most, a single-day violation. I disagree. As noted on page 5 of the\nViolation Report, the violation is for “[a]pproximately 635 days. From the date of non\ncompliance to the date of the accident.” By not repairing the acknowledged defect from August\n19, 2008, to May 20, 2010, Buckeye’s inaction created a multiple-day event. In fact, it is the\nvery long-term nature of the violation that led to the accident and that warrants a more serious\npenalty. Moreover, the accident occurred in an HCA and resulted in a release of refined\npetroleum. Had the leak continued, the environmental harm could have been far greater.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $290,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.581.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $128,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3), for failing to include an element in its IMP plan that integrated all\navailable information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure.\nAs noted above, I found that Buckeye did have an IMP Plan in place prior to August 27, 2010\nthat included an analysis process to correlate ILI indications with other relevant data to make\ndecisions regarding the integrity of the line. Based upon such finding, I hereby withdraw the\nproposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $290,000.\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\n\n\n\n5\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 $290,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in 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. §§ 195.581(a) and 195.452(f)(3), respectively. As discussed above, Item\n2 has been withdrawn; therefore, the compliance terms relating to Item 2 are also withdrawn.\nAs for the remaining Item 1, under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing action to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.581 (Item 1), Respondent must amend its\ncorrosion control procedures to give detailed instructions for inspections of any\npipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, particularly at soil-to\nair interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbanded coatings, at pipe supports, in\nsplash zones, at deck penetrations and in spans over water, in accordance with\n§195.583(b). Buckeye must submit the amended procedure within sixty (60) days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\n2. All submissions must be sent to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to\nCPF 1-2013-5006 on each document you submit.\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region. It is requested that these\ncosts be reported in two categories: 1) total costs associated with preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other charges to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\n\n\n\n6\nFailure to comply with this Order [CPF No. 1-2013-5006] may result in administrative\nassessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation\ncontinues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the\nUnited States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother 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\n\n120135006_Closure Letter_04212014_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\nApril 21, 2014\nThomas Scott Collier\nVP, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2013-5006\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn May 21, 2010, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), initiated an investigation of an accident that occurred on May 20, 2010, along Buckeye\nPartners, LP’s pipeline, designated as Line LZ601XX (Line LZ601XX or Pipeline), in Linden,\nNew Jersey. The accident involved a release of refined petroleum through a pinhole leak. As a\nresult of the OPS investigation, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 4, 2014, a Final Order which included a Civil Penalty and\nCompliance Order.\nBased on our review of the documentation submitted by Buckeye on April 4, 2014 and\nconfirmation of payment of the Civil Penalty, it has been determined that you have complied\nwith the terms of this Order.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":36299}