{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120135007","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-05-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120135007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.573(e). The case was opened on 2013-05-13 and is reported as closed as of 2013-12-11. Proposed civil penalty: $60,000. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120135007_Final Order_12112013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135007/120135007_Final%20Order_12112013.pdf\n\n120135007_Final Order_12112013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135007/120135007_Final%20Order_12112013_text.pdf\n\n120135007_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135007/120135007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013.pdf\n\n120135007_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135007/120135007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05132013_text.pdf\n\n120135007_Operator Response_05222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135007/120135007_Operator%20Response_05222013.pdf\n\n120135007_NOPV PCP PCO_05132013_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\nMay 13, 2013\nT. Scott Collier\nVP, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive Tek Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2013-5007\nDear Mr. Collier:\nDuring June 11-15, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code inspected Buckeye Partners, L.P.’s (Buckeye) facilities in Boothwyn,\nPennsylvania.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected and the\nprobable violation is:\n1. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) . . .\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control\nas required by Sec. 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an\nintegrity management program under Sec. 195.452, you must correct the deficiency\nas required by Sec. 195.452(h).\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5007\nBuckeye failed to correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as required by Sec.\n195.401(b).\nBuckeye’s Cathodic Protection Survey Reports for 2010 and 2011for Breakout Tanks 1 through\n19 at Booth Station were reviewed by the PHMSA inspector. For the eleven tanks noted below,\nthe report shows two consecutive cathodic protection (CP) readings that were below Buckeye’s\nstated criteria of -0.850 millivolt (mV) cathodic potential, including voltage drop. There was no\ndocumentation to indicate that the low readings had been remediated. According to Buckeye’s\nCorrosion Manual Procedure A-02 issued 12/2011, and with prior versions of the same\nprocedure (Buckeye’s Maintenance Manual Procedure J-02 issued 9-2009 and 9-2010), any\nabnormality or equipment deficiency should be corrected within one inspection cycle. The\ninspection is performed on an annual basis.\nDuring the dates of 8/3/2010 through 8/10/2010 and 6/3/2011 through 6/21/2011, electrical\nstructure to soil and potential difference readings were taken:\n1. Out of the eight locations around the perimeter of Tanks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and\n14, each of those tanks had at least one location where CP readings were below criteria for\ntwo consecutive inspection cycles.\n2. Out of the four locations around the perimeter of Tank 18, there was one location\nwhere CP readings were below criteria for two consecutive inspection cycles.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation 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 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $60,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $60,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye Partners, L.P.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\n120135007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05132013\nPage 2 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5007\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand 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,\nthis constitutes 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.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2013-\n5007 on each document you submit, and please whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in\nelectronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be\nsent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120135007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05132013\nPage 3 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5007\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. With respect to Item Number 1 of the Notice, pertaining to failing to correct any\nidentified deficiency in corrosion control, Buckeye must evaluate and correct the\ndeficiencies in corrosion control that were identified in the 2010 and 2011\ncathodic protection survey for Tank #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 18.\nBuckeye must submit any and all documentation that demonstrate completion\nwith the above item within ninety (90) days after receipt of the Final Order to\nByron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye Partners, LP maintain documentation\nof the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order\nand submit the total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120135007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05132013\nPage 4 of 4\n\n120135007_Final Order_12112013_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 11, 2013\nMr. Clark Smith\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nSuite 600\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-5007\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nalleged violation and associated civil penalty of $60,000, as well as the proposed compliance\norder. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 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. T. Scott Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, L.P., Five Tek Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA\n18031\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. 1-2013-5007\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween June 11-15, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninspected Buckeye Partners, LP’s facilities in Boothwyn, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Partners, LP\n(Buckeye or Respondent), owns and operates approximately 6,000 miles of hazardous liquid\npipelines in the Northeast and Upper Midwest regions.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 13, 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 proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $60,000 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent\nto take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated May 22, 2013 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations of violation and offered additional information in response to the\nNotice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nWITHDRAWAL OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:\n1 See http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx (last accessed on September 6, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) . . .\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency\nin corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the\ndeficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program\nunder § 195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by\n§ 195.452(h).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct an\nidentified corrosion control deficiency within the time frames set by § 195.401(b).2 During the\ninspection, OPS reviewed Buckeye’s 2010 and 2011 cathodic protection survey reports for\nbreakout tanks 1 through 19. The Notice alleged that OPS had discovered at least one location at\n11 separate tanks that were below Buckeye’s own stated -0.85 millivolt (mV) threshold criteria\nfor two consecutive inspection cycles.\nSpecifically, between August 3-10, 2010 and June 3-21, 2011, the Notice alleged that Buckeye\npersonnel had recorded at least one location around the perimeter of Tanks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12,\n13, and 14 that was below the -.85 mV criteria for consecutive inspection cycles. In addition,\nthere was also a location around the perimeter at Tank 18 that was below the -.85 mV criteria for\ntwo consecutive inspection cycles. There was no evidence that these readings had been\nremediated. Therefore, OPS alleged that Buckeye had failed to correct these deficiencies as\nrequired by § 195.401(b).\nIn its Response, Buckeye argued that there were no deficiencies to correct. In support, the\ncompany pointed to Section 2.1 of its Maintenance Manual Procedure J-02, which listed three\ndifferent methods that the company used to determine effective cathodic protection. In the case\nof the Boothwyn breakout tanks, Buckeye argued it had used the 100 mV test, not the -0.85 mV\nthreshold. Section 2.1.3 of Buckeye’s procedures stated that the 100 mV test required a\nminimum of 100 mV between the structure surface and a stable reference electrode in contact\nwith the electrolyte. In its Response, Buckeye confirmed that by using this 100 mV test, none of\nthe tanks at Boothwyn had insufficient cathodic protection. Therefore, Buckeye requested that\nPHMSA withdraw the Notice, civil penalty, and compliance order.\nI have reviewed the evidence in the case file and find that there is insufficient evidence to\nsupport a finding of violation of § 195.573(e). Buckeye clearly had three different methods\noutlined in its procedures that company personnel could use to determine effective cathodic\nprotection. That fact is undisputed. Moreover, it is unclear whether the 100 mV test was the\ncorrect option to use, considering that Buckeye personnel stated during the OPS inspection that\n2 Section 195.401(b) states, in relevant part:\n“(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the following\nrequirements:\n(1) Non integrity management repairs: Whenever an operator discovers any\ncondition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it must\ncorrect the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a\nnature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not\noperate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition. . . .”\n\n\n\n3\nthey did not have effective static P/S data to support the 100 mV test.3\nHowever, OPS has not alleged that Buckeye failed to use the proper criteria to determine the\nadequacy of cathodic protection (§ 195.571), that it failed to identify a corrosion control\ndeficiency, or that it failed to follow its own procedures under 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a). Instead,\nOPS alleged that Buckeye failed to correct an identified corrosion control deficiency. Since it is\nnot clear from the evidence that there was an identified deficiency to correct, I cannot find a\nviolation of § 195.573(e). Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I am\nwithdrawing this item and the associated civil penalty.\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 $60,000 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $ 60,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(e), for failing to correct an identified corrosion control deficiency. As stated above, I\nam withdrawing the alleged violation and the associated civil penalty amount.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e). 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. As stated above,\nsince I am withdrawing the alleged violation, I am also withdrawing the proposed Compliance\nOrder.\n3 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (June 5, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 3.\n\n\n\n4\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order [CPF No. 1-2013-5007] are effective upon service\nin accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17131}