{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120155021","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-12-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.573(a)(1), 195.573(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155021","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120155021","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.573(a)(1),  195.573(d). The case was opened on 2015-12-15 and is reported as closed as of 2016-12-16. Proposed civil penalty: $270,600. Assessed civil penalty: $213,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120155021_Final Order_12072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155021/120155021_Final%20Order_12072016.pdf\n\n120155021_Final Order_12072016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155021/120155021_Final%20Order_12072016_text.pdf\n\n120155021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12152015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155021/120155021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12152015.pdf\n\n120155021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12152015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155021/120155021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12152015_text.pdf\n\n120155021_Operator Response to Notice_01112016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155021/120155021_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01112016.pdf\n\n120155021_Final Order_12072016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 7, 2016\nMr. Clark Smith\nPresident\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nSuite 600\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2015-5021\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of\nthe allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, and assesses a reduced civil\npenalty of $213,800. It further finds that Buckeye Partners, LP, has completed the actions\nspecified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid, this enforcement action will be 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. §\n190.5.\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, PHMSA, OPS\nMr. Thomas. S (Scott) Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity,\nBuckeye Partners, LP, Five TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville,\nPennsylvania 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. 1-2015-5021\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom July 15 through July 19, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the records of Buckeye Partners, LP\n(Buckeye or Respondent), at Respondent’s headquarters in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania,\nincluding a review of survey records from Respondent’s Malvern and Booth inspection units in\nPennsylvania. Buckeye owns and operates approximately 6,000 miles of hazardous liquid\npipelines transporting refined products and highly volatile liquids, principally in the Northeastern\nand upper Midwestern states.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated December 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. §§ 195.402 and 195.573 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $270,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated January 11, 2016 (Response). The company\ncontested only one of the allegations of violation and provided information concerning the\ncorrective actions it had already taken regarding another, referencing materials and information\nsubmitted to the Eastern Region on November 24, 2015. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx (last accessed May 27, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5021\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\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 and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. .\n. .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow, for\neach pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Buckeye failed to inspect electrical-isolation devices for proper operation\nduring annual corrosion control surveys, as required by Buckeye’s own procedures. According\nto the Notice, Buckeye’s Maintenance Manual required the annual inspection of installed\nelectrical-isolation devices for proper operation. The Notice alleged that Buckeye’s electrical-\nisolation survey records showed the company had failed to inspect electrical-isolation devices for\nproper operation on 37 instances at 37 locations from 2011 to 2012.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.2 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow, for\neach pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow, for each pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to monitor pipelines “within or\nnear high-voltage AC corridors” for induced alternating-current (AC) interference on an annual\nbasis, as required by Buckeye’s own procedures. The Notice alleged that Buckeye’s\nMaintenance Manual required pipelines within “high-voltage AC (HVAC) corridors” to be\nmonitored for induced AC interference on an annual basis. The Notice alleged that Buckeye’s\nelectrical surveys revealed AC corridors had not been identified or monitored for induced AC\ninterference in 140 instances from 2011 to 2012.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.3 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow, for\neach pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\n2 Response at 1.\n3 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5021\nPage 3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow, for each pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to maintain and repair, within\none inspection cycle, test stations that had been found to be defective. According to the Notice,\nBuckeye’s Maintenance Manual required that any test station found to be defective must be\nrepaired within one inspection cycle. The Notice alleged that inspection records from the\nRespondent’s Malvern and Macungie mainlines showed invalid, missing or abnormally low test\nstation readings in five separate instances on three different segments, without corresponding\nrecords reflecting repairs within one inspection cycle.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.4 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow, for\neach pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or\nineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3\ncalendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct\nexternal corrosion tests on a protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to take\nelectrical measurements to demonstrate adequate levels of cathodic protection on a protected\npipeline at 11 different locations during the company’s 2011 annual survey.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.5 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct\nexternal corrosion tests on a protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n4 Id.\n5 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5021\nPage 4\n(a) ….\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank\nto ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance\nwith API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, this\ninspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control procedures\nestablished under § 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain\noperation and maintenance provisions of API RP 651 is not necessary for\nthe safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each\ncathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout\ntank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system were in accordance with API RP\n651, 3rd edition, January 2007 (RP 651). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to\nconduct electrical surveys on Tank 10 at the Booth station in Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, from\n2010 through 2012.\nIn its Response, Buckeye acknowledged that it did not conduct electrical surveys on Tank 10 at\nthe Booth Station in 2011, but indicated that the tank was taken out of service on December 9,\n2010, for an internal inspection and that product was cleared from the tank at that time.6\nBuckeye explained that, as a result of its inspection, a new tank bottom was installed, which\nincluded a new cathodic-protection system between the old floor and the new floor. This project\nwas not completed until April 27, 2012, and no product was in the tank until that time. Buckeye\nargued that the company was not required to perform a cathodic-protection survey in 2010 on\nTank 10 because the tank was out-of-service while these installations were being made, with no\nproduct in the tank from December 2010 through April 2012. Further, Buckeye stated that a\ncathodic-protection survey was conducted in 2012 following the installation of the new tank\nbottom.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that a cathodic protection survey of Tank 10 at Booth\nStation was not required in 2011. Section 11.1.2 of API RP 651 states: “If tanks are empty, there\nmay be large areas of the bottoms which are not in contact with the underlying soil. Potential\nsurveys, in this case, may give misleading information.” The Recommended Practice further\ninstructs that “potential surveys should be conducted with an adequate level in the tank to\nmaximize contact of the tank bottom with the pad material.” Due to the repair work being\nperformed by Buckeye from December 2010 through April 2012, I find that it was unnecessary\nfor Respondent to perform a potential survey when there was an inadequate level of product in\nthe tank to meet the inspection provisions of RP 651. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order\nthat Item 5 be withdrawn.\nFindings of violation for Items 1-4 will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\n6 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5021\nPage 5\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.7 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 $270,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $69,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a), for failing to follow, for each pipeline system, its own manual of written\nprocedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal\noperations and emergencies. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$69,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $90,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a), for failing to follow, for each pipeline system, its own manual of written\nprocedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal\noperations and emergencies. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$90,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $54,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a)(1) for failing to conduct tests on a cathodically protected pipeline at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. Buckeye neither contested the\nallegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $54,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $56,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(d), for failing to inspect each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on\nthe bottom of an aboveground breakout tank, to ensure that operation and maintenance of the\nsystem are in accordance with RP 651. As discussed above, Item 5 has been withdrawn. Based\nupon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d).\n7 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\nCPF No. 1-2015-5021\nPage 6\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 $213,800.\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, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $213,800 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 Item 2, to correct an alleged violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following action specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 2), on November 24, 2015,\nRespondent submitted its Interference Currents Procedure to PHMSA in response to\nthe Notice of Amendment issued in connection with a related proceeding, CPF No. 1-\n2015-5016M. The Director has indicated this procedure satisfies the requirements of\nthe Notice’s Proposed Compliance Order with respect to Item 2.8\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\n8 Region Recommendation, (January 21, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-5021\nPage 7\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 7, 2016\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":19524}