{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120155019","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-10-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.432(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155019","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120155019","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.432(b). The case was opened on 2015-10-15 and is reported as closed as of 2017-04-20. Proposed civil penalty: $50,400. Assessed civil penalty: $50,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120155019_Closure Letter_04202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_Closure%20Letter_04202017.pdf\n\n120155019_Closure Letter_04202017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_Closure%20Letter_04202017_text.pdf\n\n120155019_Final Order_12152016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_Final%20Order_12152016.pdf\n\n120155019_Final Order_12152016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_Final%20Order_12152016_text.pdf\n\n120155019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10152015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10152015.pdf\n\n120155019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10152015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10152015_text.pdf\n\n120155019_Operator Response to Notice_11032015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155019/120155019_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11032015.pdf\n\n120155019_Closure Letter_04202017_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nApril 20, 2017\nThomas S. (Scott) Collier\nVice President, Performance Assurance\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2015-5019\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn December 15, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Buckeye Partners, L.P. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. The Final Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nActing Director, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120155019_Final Order_12152016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 15, 2016\nMr. Clark C. Smith\nPresident & CEO\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nHouston, Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2015-5019\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes one finding\nof violation, assesses a civil penalty of $50,400, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nBuckeye Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Acting Director Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Thomas S. Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance, Buckeye Partners, LP,\n5 TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA 18031\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. 1-2015-5019\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom July 29, 2013, through August 2, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Buckeye\nPartners, LP (Buckeye or Respondent), in Macungie, Pennsylvania. Buckeye owns and operates\nmore than 5,000 miles of liquid petroleum-product pipelines throughout the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 15, 2015, 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. § 195.432(b) and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $50,400 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 November 3, 2015 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation, but provided additional records and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Oct. 15, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5019\nPage 2\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks\naccording to [American Petroleum Institute Standard (API Std)] 653\n(except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval)\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions\nprevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed according\nto a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under\n§195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in API Std\n653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal inspection\ninterval.\nThe Notice quoted paragraph 6.3.2.1 of Section 6.3.2 of API Std 653, Tank Inspection,\nRepair, Alteration and Reconstruction, which states:\nAll tanks shall be given a visual external inspection by an authorized\ninspector. This inspection shall be called the external inspection and must\nbe conducted at least every 5 years or RCA/4N years (where RCA is the\ndifference between the measured shell thickness and the minimum\nrequired thickness in mils, and N is the shell corrosion rate in mils per\nyear) whichever is less. Tanks may be in operation during this inspection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks\naccording to API Std 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to perform a\nvisual external inspection in accordance with API Std 653 for breakout tank 214. During the\ninspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Storage Tank Inspection Records for breakout tank\n214 from 1996 through 2013, and Buckeye's procedures for tank inspections, dating back to\n2001. The records indicated that visual external inspections were conducted on Tank 214 on the\nfollowing dates:\n1. December 28, 1996;\n2. January 2, 2002; and\n3. March 27, 2013.\nThe Notice further alleged that the PHMSA inspector had asked if there were other tank-\ninspection records available that covered the timeframe from 2002 through 2013. Buckeye\npersonnel indicated that there were no additional records and admitted that the company had not\nperformed the required external tank inspection but could not explain why. The inspection\nconducted in 2013 exceeded the five-year maximum interval by six years, two months, and 25\ndays (i.e., 2,275 days).\nIn its Response, Buckeye indicated that it had also performed an inspection of Tank 214 on\nFebruary 28, 2008, in addition to those described in the Notice, and asked that the finding for\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5019\nPage 3\nItem 1 be amended and the proposed penalty reduced.2 Upon review of the Response and the\ndocuments relating to the 2008 inspection, I find that the time between the January 2, 2002\ninspection and the recently-submitted February 28, 2008 inspection still exceeds the five-year\nmaximum interval between inspections, as does the time between the February 28, 2008\ninspection and the March 27, 2013 inspection.\nAs for the proposed penalty, this will be discussed in the “Assessment of Penalty” section below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Std 653.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\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. 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 $50,400 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432(b), for failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Std 653. Buckeye did not contest\nthe allegation of violation but requested a reduction in the proposed penalty, and submitted\nevidence that supported its request.3 The evidence consisted of a copy of the in-service\ninspection report that had been prepared for the February 28, 2008 inspection of breakout tank\n214. I have reviewed this report, which confirms that the company did indeed perform the\nrequired inspection in 2008 but still exceeded the five-year maximum interval between the\nFebruary 28, 2008 inspection and the March 27, 2013 inspection by 27 days.\nThis new evidence, however, does not eliminate the violation or alter the facts and circumstances\nconsidered in calculating the proposed penalty. I have reviewed Section E of the Violation\nReport and the penalty calculation itself and confirmed that a reduction in the duration of the\nviolation did not affect the amount of the proposed penalty. On the contrary, the proposed\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n2 Response, at 1.\n3 Id., and attachments.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5019\nPage 4\npenalty was based largely on the risk posed by the potential effect of the violation on High\nConsequence Areas, the company’s history of prior offenses, and its failure to carry out specific\nmaintenance and inspection activities. I can therefore find no reason to reduce the proposed\npenalty and Buckeye has not presented any evidence or argument that would either change the\npenalty assessment criteria discussed in the Violation Report or otherwise support a penalty\nreduction.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $50,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $50,400.\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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S Macarthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 79169. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $50,400 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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violations of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b). 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 actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(b) (Item 1), Respondent must identify\nany breakout tank at the Macungie facility that has not had a visual external\ninspection, in accordance with API Std 653, within the past five years from the\ndate of this Final Order, or RCA/4N years (where RCA is the difference between\nthe measured shell thickness and the minimum required thickness in mils, and N\nis the shell corrosion rate in mils per year), whichever is less, and shall create a\ndetail sheet for each identified tank showing the source data and calculations for\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5019\nPage 5\nthe inspection interval.\n2. Buckeye must then conduct a visual external inspection on the identified tanks, in\naccordance with API Std 653 and Buckeye's procedures for conducting visual\nexternal inspections.\n3. Buckeye must provide a summary report demonstrating compliance with all the\nabove items to the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628\nwithin 120 days after receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Byron Coy, P.E.,\nDirector, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes 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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order.\nThe petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200\nNew Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to\nthe Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions\nreceived no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent,\nprovided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49\nC.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty\nassessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and\nconditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 15, 2016\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":16991}