# BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120145007
- **title:** BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2014-11-19
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(a), 195.432(b), 195.583(a), 195.589(c).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120145007.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120145007.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120145007
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120145007
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.428(a),  195.432(b),  195.583(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2014-11-19 and is reported as closed as of 2017-04-13. Proposed civil penalty: $198,700. Assessed civil penalty: $193,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120145007_Closure Letter_04132017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Closure%20Letter_04132017.pdf

120145007_Closure Letter_04132017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Closure%20Letter_04132017_text.pdf

120145007_Final Order_12172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Final%20Order_12172015.pdf

120145007_Final Order_12172015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Final%20Order_12172015_text.pdf

120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014.pdf

120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014_text.pdf

120145007_Operator Response to Notice_12162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12162014.pdf

120145007_Final Order_12172015_text.pdf

December 17, 2015
Mr. Clark C. Smith
President & CEO
Buckeye Partners, LP
One Greenway Plaza
Houston, Texas 77046
Re: CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one
allegation of violation in part, makes other findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty
of $193,000, 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. (Scott) Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity,
Buckeye Partners, LP, Five TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA
18031
Ms. Claudia Pankowski, Director, Regulatory Compliance, 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. 1-2014-5007
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between October 15, 2012, and April 10, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives
of 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 the Linden, New Jersey area. Respondent
owns and operates liquid petroleum-product pipeline systems throughout the United States, with
over 6,000 miles of pipeline. Respondent also owns approximately 100 liquid petroleum
products terminals, with a storage capacity of more than 70 million barrels.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 19, 2014, 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 committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $198,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Buckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated December 16, 2014 (Response). The company
partly contested one of the allegations of violation, offered additional information in response to
the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced accordingly. Respondent
did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195 as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
1 Buckeye Partners, LP, website, available at http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx
(last accessed October 1, 2015).



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 2
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,
inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure
regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it
is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate
from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service
in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to test certain
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical
condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the
service in which it is used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye:
(a) failed to test both the high and high-high level alarms on Tank 119 over two required
intervals; and
(b) failed to test the high and high-high level alarms on Tanks 135 and 156 over two required
intervals.
In its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegation in part (b) of Item 1, regarding Tanks 135
and 156, that it failed to test both alarms on these tanks during the specified interval. With
regard to part (a), regarding Tank 119, Buckeye indicated that it had now located records for this
tank, demonstrating that the annual tests had been done as required during the specified period,
and included copies of these records with its Response.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.428(a), by failing to test both the high and high-high level alarms on Tanks 135 and 156
over two inspection intervals. I further find that Respondent was not out of compliance with
respect to Tank 119. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Part (a) of Item 1 be
withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a)…
(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks
according to API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the
bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 3
operations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).2
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks
according to API Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that portions of the tank
inspection forms involving the inspection of appurtenances, insulation, and tank paint coatings
checklists were not completed.
In its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegations in Item 2 of the Notice. Accordingly,
after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by
failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-
ground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to
the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline
is
located: Onshore……… Offshore……... Then the frequency of inspection is:
At least once every 3 calendar years, but
with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
At least once each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding 15 months.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each
pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to inspect piping located in three valve pits at
the Flemington Pump Station during the company’s June 23, 2010 inspection of that facility.
In its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegations in Item 3 of the Notice. Accordingly,
after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by
failing to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for
evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not
exceeding 39 months.
2 Section 195.432 has subsequently been amended as of August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46848), but the former version that
was in effect at the time of the alleged violation is the one applied and quoted here.



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 4
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), which states:
§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?
(a) …
(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check,
demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and
test required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the
adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control
measures does not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years,
except that records related to §§195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and
195.579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains
in service.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain
records of atmospheric corrosion inspections conducted on exposed pipe. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Buckeye’s records of atmospheric corrosion inspections for facilities in
Linden and Newark, New Jersey,were incomplete and did not have sufficient detail to
demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures.
In its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegations in Item 4 of the Notice. Accordingly,
after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by
failing to maintain records of atmospheric corrosion inspections conducted on exposed pipe.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.3 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; 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 $198,700 for the violations cited above.
3 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.
1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per
violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations. For
violations occurring prior to January 4, 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.



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 5
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $77,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.428(a), for failing to test certain pressure control equipment on Tanks 119, 135, and 156 to
determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from
the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
With respect to part (a) of Item 1 regarding Tank 119, in its Response, Buckeye demonstrated
that it was not out of compliance. As discussed above, this portion of Item 1 has been
withdrawn, along with the associated penalty. With respect to part (b) of Item 1 regarding tanks
135 and 156, Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. I therefore find that the penalty amount proposed
in the Notice for part (b) is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the
violation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of
$72,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $57,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.432(b), for failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-
pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653. Buckeye neither
contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the
proposed penalty. I therefore find that the penalty amount proposed in the Notice is warranted,
considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation and Respondent’s culpability
for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $57,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.583(a), for failing to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but
with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented
any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. I therefore find that the
penalty amount proposed in the notice is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and
gravity of the violation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$43,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), for failing to maintain records of atmospheric corrosion inspections
conducted on exposed pipe. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence
or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. I therefore find that the penalty
amount proposed in the Notice is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity
of the violation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,200
for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c).
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 $193,000.



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 6
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 $193,000 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 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432(b), 195.583(a), and 195.589(c), 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 § 195.432(b) (Item 2) pertaining to inspection of
the condition of breakout tank paint coatings and appurtenances in accordance with
API Standard 653 paragraph 6.3.1.3:
a. b. c. Buckeye must review its tank inspection procedures and revise them to fully
address the requirements of API Standard 653. Specifically, the revisions must:
i. Identify and define the roles and responsibilities of all personnel involved
in the process;
ii. Ensure that the disposition of all recommended repairs and monitoring is
documented in writing and that reasons are given if recommended actions
are delayed or deemed unnecessary; and
iii. Specify the actions to be taken by personnel when field conditions prevent
the inspection of any item on the checklists (e.g., the Chime covered with
soil or water);
For all breakout tanks at the Linden Station, Buckeye must conduct routine in-
service inspections and remediate as necessary in accordance with the procedures
modified pursuant to paragraph (a) above; and
Submit documentation demonstrating completion of the revisions and routine in-
service inspections required by paragraphs (a)−(b) of this item to the Director
within 90 days of receipt of this Order.



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 7
4. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.583(a) (Item 3) pertaining to atmospheric
corrosion control, Respondent must:
a. b. c. d. Inspect the piping in the valve pits at the Flemington, NJ pump station;
Evaluate the piping to ensure that pipe integrity is suitable for the maximum
operating pressure of the pipeline;
Inspect, clean and coat (as necessary) the piping according to 49 CFR Part 195
and Buckeye’s procedures; and
Submit documentation demonstrating completion of the actions required by
paragraphs (a)−(c) of this item to the Director within 60 days of receipt of this
Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.589(c) (Item 4) pertaining to the corrosion
control procedures for exposed pipe, Respondent must:
a. b. c. d. Revise its corrosion control procedures to give detailed instructions for
inspections of pipelines or portions of pipelines that are exposed to the
atmosphere, and in particular must include pipe that is just below grade at soil-to
air interfaces. Specifically:
i. The procedures must provide a methodology for assessing the integrity of
the underground portion of the soil-to-air interface when the visual
inspection of the aboveground portion indicates bare pipe or damaged or
disbonded coating; and
ii. The procedures must provide for grading the severity of atmospheric or
galvanic corrosion. In Form B of Buckeye Corrosion Manual Procedure
A-04: Visual Pipe Inspection (CFR Title 49: Parts 195.569, 195.581(c),
195.583(a), 195.583(c)) revised 9/2013, the terms “minor”, “moderate”,
and “severe” are used to describe rust or pitting for the condition of
aboveground piping, risers and pipe supports. The revised procedures
must provide measurement parameters for these terms that allow the
corrosion technician to distinguish between the severity ratings in order to
properly classify corrosion severity and take appropriate remedial actions.
The procedures must also specify timelines for addressing each severity
rating;
Inspect all of the soil-to-air interfaces in the Linden, NJ facility, in accordance
with the revised procedures that were not inspected within the time described in
the regulations;
Clean and coat the exposed piping as necessary according to 49 CFR Part 195 and
Buckeye’s associated procedures; and
Submit documentation demonstrating completion of the actions required by
paragraphs (a)−(c) of this item to the Director within 180 days of receipt of this
Order.
Submit all documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined
in this order to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous



CPF No. 1-2014-5007
Page 8
Materials Safety Administration, Suite 103, Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, NJ
08628 for review.
5. 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, Director, Eastern Region, 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 physical
changes to pipeline facilities.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate
Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,
2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at
the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of
service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the
issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate
Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are
effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

120145007_Closure Letter_04132017_text.pdf

EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
April 13, 2017
T. Scott Collier, Vice President
Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity
Buckeye Partners, LP
Five TEK Park
9999 Hamilton Boulevard
Breinigsville, PA 18031
CPF 1-2014-5007
Dear Mr. Collier:
On December 15, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Buckeye Partners, LP 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 you
provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty on December 22, 2015, it has been
determined that you have 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,
Robert Burrough
Acting Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 25582