{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120135011","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-07-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.583(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120135011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.583(c). The case was opened on 2013-07-15 and is reported as closed as of 2014-04-25. Proposed civil penalty: $68,200. Assessed civil penalty: $66,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120135011_Final Order_04042014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135011/120135011_Final%20Order_04042014.pdf\n\n120135011_Final Order_04042014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135011/120135011_Final%20Order_04042014_text.pdf\n\n120135011_NOPV PCP_07152013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135011/120135011_NOPV%20PCP_07152013.pdf\n\n120135011_NOPV PCP_07152013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135011/120135011_NOPV%20PCP_07152013_text.pdf\n\n120135011_Operator Response_08132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135011/120135011_Operator%20Response_08132013.pdf\n\n120135011_Final Order_04042014_text.pdf\n\nAPRIL 4, 2014\nMr. Clark C. Smith\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nFive TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-5011\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $66,400. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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 S. (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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2013-5011\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 30, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Buckeye Partners,\nLP (Buckeye or Respondent), in the Paulsboro, New Jersey, and Malvern, Pennsylvania, areas.\nBuckeye owns and operates a major hazardous liquid pipeline network that transports refined\nproducts, primarily in the Northeastern and upper Midwestern states.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated July 15, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Buckeye had committed two violations of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) and assessing a civil penalty of $68,200 for the alleged violations. The\nwarning item required no further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation\nor face possible enforcement action in the future.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated August 13, 2013 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations of violation, offered additional information in response to the Notice,\nand requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\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. § 195.402(a), which states:\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n1 Buckeye Partners, LP, About Us, available at http://www.buckeye.com/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last\naccessed 12/31/2013).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall\nbe prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to follow its corrosion control procedure,\nMaintenance Manual, J-04-Visual Pipe Inspection (issued 6/09), because it did not document the\nresults of the company’s triennial atmospheric corrosion inspections on the required Form B –\nTriennial Visual Inspection Form. According to the Notice, Buckeye’s audit paperwork\nindicated that the company had conducted triennial inspections at 14 different locations between\nJuly 1, 2009, and May 25, 2011, but failed to document these inspections on Form B.\nIn its Response, Buckeye acknowledged that it lacked proper documentation for 7 of the 14\ninspection locations identified in the Notice, and as required by the company’s own procedures.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities with respect to 7 of the 14 instances alleged in the Notice\nand identified in the Violation Report.2\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and for handling abnormal operations. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Buckeye failed to follow its corrosion control procedure, Corrosion Manual, A-02: External\nCorrosion Control, Section 3.7, Cathodic Protection Survey Procedures and Processes (issued\n12/11), by failing to correct, within one inspection cycle, any abnormality or equipment\ndeficiency found in the course of its cathodic protection (CP) surveys. The Notice alleged that\nBuckeye supplied PHMSA with a survey report indicating six instances of equipment\ndeficiencies at the Peck Road, Orchard Court, and Timberline Road inspection locations and that\npersisted without correction for more than one inspection cycle.\nIn its Response, Buckeye argued that its inspection records for the Orchard Court location were\nincorrect, insofar as “there is no casing at Orchard Court and . . . the data in the CP Survey\nReport reflecting a casing was incorrect.”3 Therefore, according to Buckeye, the requirements of\nCorrosion Manual A-02 were not triggered. Although Respondent did not provide any\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (July 15, 2013) (on file with PHMSA).\n3 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n3\ndocumentation supporting its contention that its own records were inaccurate, I accept the\ncompany’s representation on this point and withdraw the two allegations relating to the Orchard\nCourt location.\nHowever, with respect to the remaining two inspection locations, Buckeye acknowledged the\nexistence of a shorted casing at the Timberline Road location and the existence of broken lead\nwires at the Peck Road location, but argued, nevertheless, that these conditions did not impair the\nCP at either location. Regardless of whether there was adequate CP or not, Buckeye still failed\nto follow its own procedures, which required that any abnormality be corrected within one\ninspection cycle. If a casing were shorted or a test wire broken, then such condition should have\nbeen investigated and remedied by the date of the next inspection, in accordance with Buckeye’s\nCorrosion Manual A-02. Instead, the conditions persisted for several inspection cycles.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities and for handling abnormal operations.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $68,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting corrosion\ncontrol inspections. As discussed above, I found that Respondent had provided satisfactory\ntriennial inspection reports for 7 of the 14 originally cited locations. Buckeye requested that the\nproposed penalty be reduced accordingly. I have reviewed the proposed penalty and believe it is\nappropriate to adjust the penalty by an amount equal to the increment attributed to the seven\n4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\n4\nallegations of violation that have been withdrawn.5 Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, I\nassess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $27,200 for seven instances of violating 49 C.F.R. §\n195.402(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $39,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting corrosion\ncontrol inspections. As discussed above, I found that Buckeye failed to correct, within one\ninspection cycle, four abnormalities and equipment deficiencies discovered at two locations\nduring its CP surveys, but accepted Respondent’s contention that in another location, the\ncompany’s own records were inaccurate and therefore withdrew the allegations of violation.\nThe company requested that the proposed penalty be reduced accordingly. I have reviewed the\nproposed penalty and adjusted the penalty by an amount equal to the increment attributed to the\ntwo allegations of violation that have been withdrawn.6 Accordingly, based upon the foregoing,\nI assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $39,200 for four instances of violating 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $66,400.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $66,400 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n5 The bulk of the penalty proposed in the Notice was based not on the number of inspection reports missed but,\nrather, on several other factors (e.g., the nature of the violation, whether an accident was involved, and the\noperator’s history of prior violations) that are not affected or reduced by the number of instances of violation.\n6 Id.\n\n\n\n5\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nprotection against atmospheric corrosion found during an inspection conducted at\nthe Paulsboro Refinery area.\nBuckeye contested this item, arguing that according to its procedures, maintenance of above-\nground piping and fittings may be deferred in certain instances for three years. In addition, the\ncompany indicated it was in the process of reviewing its inspection documentation\nrequirements. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the 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 the 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 but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15552}