# PORTLAND PIPE LINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120185029
- **title:** PORTLAND PIPE LINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2018-10-05
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185029.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185029.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185029
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120185029
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving PORTLAND PIPE LINE CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.402(a). The case was opened on 2018-10-05 and is reported as closed as of 2019-10-09. Proposed civil penalty: $30,900. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120185029_Final Order_10092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185029/120185029_Final%20Order_10092019.pdf

120185029_Final Order_10092019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185029/120185029_Final%20Order_10092019_text.pdf

120185029_NOPV PCP_10052018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185029/120185029_NOPV%20PCP_10052018.pdf

120185029_NOPV PCP_10052018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185029/120185029_NOPV%20PCP_10052018_text.pdf

120185029_Operator Response to Notice_11022018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185029/120185029_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11022018.pdf

120185029_Final Order_10092019_text.pdf

October 9, 2019
Mr. Thomas A. Hardison
President
Portland Pipe Line Corporation
30 Hill Street
South Portland, Maine 04106
Re: CPF No. 1-2018-5029
Dear Mr. Hardison:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and withdraws the proposed civil penalty of $30,900. Accordingly, this case is now
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
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 )
Portland Pipe Line Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2018-5029
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August 6 through 10, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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 Portland Pipe Line
Corporation1 (PPLC or Respondent), in South Portland, Maine. PPLC owns and operates a
tanker unloading facility, two tank farms (South Portland, Maine and Montreal, Quebec), and a
system of pump stations and crude oil pipelines that traverse 236 miles along a common right-of-
way from the state of Maine to Quebec. The pipelines deliver crude oil to customers
in Montreal, Quebec. The tank farm in South Portland consists of 23 tanks with approximately
3.5 million barrels of storage capacity. Two pipelines (18-inch and 24-inch) and eight pump
stations are operated out of the South Portland, Maine operations center, which moves the crude
from the South Portland tank farm to Montreal.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated October 5, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that PPLC had
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $30,900 for the alleged
violation.
PPLC responded to the Notice by letter dated November 2, 2018 (Response). The company
contested the allegation and requested that it be eliminated or reduced to a Notice of Amendment
(NOA) or a Warning Item, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a
hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
1 Portland Pipe Line Corporation is the United States based wholly owned subsidiary of Montreal Pipe Line, a
privately held corporation that is incorporated in Canada. http://www.pmpl.com/about-us/ (last accessed September
20, 2019).
2 http://www.pmpl.com/about-us/ (last accessed September 20, 2019).



CPF No. 1-2018-5029
Page 2
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. § 195.402(a), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made
as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be
prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and
appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow for each
pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and
maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that PPLC failed to follow its written procedures for performing and documenting
its pressure limiting and relief device inspections conducted per § 195.428(a).3 In support of the
allegation of violation, the Notice identified a total of 59 instances between 2016 and 2017 in
which PPLC failed to document the “as-found” and “as-left” condition of relief valves on the 24-
inch Main Line Pumping Station before and after testing.
The Notice alleged that PPLC’s own procedures required it to document these conditions. PPLC
procedure titled Portland-Montreal Pipe Line System Operations & Maintenance Procedures,
Section 6.7 – Critical Systems and Equipment, dated 11/10/16 (Procedure), provides in relevant
part, as follows:
To ensure that relief valves will relieve at the specified set pressure when needed,
information must be documented regarding the condition of the relief valve before and
after the testing, that is, the “as-found” and “as-left” conditions. Testing documentation
is recorded on the Protective Device Testing records and must include the specified set
pressure, the as-found set pressure, and the as-left set pressure, along with the identity of
the test technician and the date of the test. The acceptable as-found and as-left set
pressures have been defined by engineering to ensure continued reliable safe operations,
and are defined in this section, CMMS, or on the test record documentation forms. The
acceptable as-left set pressures are defined within narrow tolerances to ensure acceptable
protection to the MOP. The acceptable as-found set pressures are defined to ensure that
relief valves continue to provide reliable, repeatable performance between testing
intervals.4
According to the Notice, PPLC personnel, upon questioning by the PHMSA inspector, stated that
3 Section 195.428 requires an operator to inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure
regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment at regular intervals.
4 Notice, at 2.



CPF No. 1-2018-5029
Page 3
information about the “as-found” and “as-left” set pressures “would be documented in the
remarks section of the record form.” Review of the records provided by PPLC show that this
information was missing from 17 inspections in 2016 and 42 inspections in 2017.
In its Response, PPLC contested the allegation of violation, requested that the alleged violation
be withdrawn or reduced to a warning item or an NOA, and requested that the proposed civil
penalty be eliminated or reduced. PPLC asserts that the 24-inch Main Line Pumping Station
Protective Device Testing Records from 2016 and 2017 contained the “required engineering
specified set pressure for the device noted in the inspection forms to guide the technicians and it
is clear from the documentation that the devices were tested annually against the appropriate
safety standard.”5 In addition, PPLC argues that the 59 instances where information about the
“as-found” and “as-left” set pressure was missing are irrelevant because that information is only
documented if the “as-found” or “as-left” set pressures differ from the required set pressure for
the device. If the “as-found” and “as-left” set pressure aligns with the required set pressure
noted on the form, the “as-found” and “as-left” set pressure would not be documented.
According to PPLC, “the absence of an entry in the remarks section indicates the ‘as-found’ and
‘as left’ set pressure aligns with the required set pressure indicated on the form.”6 PPLC does
not dispute that the records at issue failed to include the “as-found” and “as-left” set pressures as
identified in the Notice, but rather, argued that the omission was due to PPLC personnel’s
interpretation of what information was required to be documented on the forms. PPLC also
notes that there is no allegation that it failed to test devices and verify them against the
established set pressure for each device. Based on this, PPLC believes that the appropriate
action is to withdraw the allegation of violation and convert this case to a Warning Letter or a
Notice of Amendment (NOA).
Having reviewed the record and considered Respondent’s arguments, I find that PPLC failed to
follow its Procedure 17 times in 2016 and 42 times in 2017 when it did not record the “as-found”
and “as-left” set pressures. Respondent’s procedures required that it record testing
documentation on the Protective Device Testing records and that information “must include” the
“as-found” and “as-left” set pressures. Respondent failed to follow this procedure when it did
not include this information on its inspection forms.
PPLC’s explanation of how its personnel interpreted what was required to be documented on the
forms is unpersuasive because it is directly contradicted by the plain language of its own
Procedure, which states, in relevant part, that “information must be documented regarding the
condition of the relief valve before and after the testing, that is, the ‘as-found’ and ‘as-left’
conditions.”
Finally, I find that the Director was justified in issuing the Notice based on the facts that
demonstrate Respondent violated § 195.402(a). There is no basis in this case, legally or
factually, to override the Director’s exercise of discretion in bringing this matter as a notice of
probable violation and not as an NOA or warning. As set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 190, an NOA or
warning is not the proper enforcement tool for alleging a violation and proposing a civil penalty.
5 Response, at 1.
6 Id. at 2.



CPF No. 1-2018-5029
Page 4
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for
performing and documenting its pressure limiting and relief device inspections.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense 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.7 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; 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 $30,900 for the violation cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a), for failing to follow its written procedures for performing and documenting its
pressure limiting and relief device inspections.
In its Response, PLLC requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or withdrawn. PLLC
argued that there is no allegation that it failed to inspect the relief valve devices, but rather the
allegation is that it simply failed to properly document the inspections performed. PLLC is
correct in this regard. The Notice does not allege a failure to perform the inspections, which are
necessary to ensure pipeline safety. Rather, as I found above, PLLC violated § 195.402(a) by
failing to follow its procedure. Pipeline safety was minimally impacted by PLLC’s failure and
the record reflects that the company did perform the necessary inspections. Accordingly, for the
reasons detailed below, I find that a civil penalty in the amount of $30,900 is not warranted in
this case and it is withdrawn.
Regarding the nature criterion in the Violation Report, PHMSA noted that the violation was
related to a failure to perform a required activity.8 PLLC asserted that “at most this could be
considered a documentation and recordkeeping violation . . . .”9 I disagree. The Notice alleged a
failure to follow procedures, not a failure to keep records. The Violation Report itself
specifically identifies a failure to follow procedures as an example of an activities violation.
7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,
83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).
8 Violation Report, at 7.
9 Response, at 2.



CPF No. 1-2018-5029
Page 5
Regarding the circumstances criterion in the Violation Report, PHMSA noted that it discovered
the violation, which started on November 11, 2016, and lasted for longer than 10 days.10 PLLC
does not dispute that PHMSA discovered the violation, nor the duration of the violation. PLLC
disputes that a violation occurred at all. Having already found PLLC in violation of
§ 195.402(a), I find that PHMSA properly considered the fact that it discovered the violation,
and that the violation lasted longer than 10 days in duration, in its calculation of the proposed
civil penalty.
Regarding the gravity criterion, PHMSA noted in the Violation Report that the alleged violation
“occurred; however, pipeline safety was minimally affected.”11 This is the lowest category
selectable for gravity. I find this selection accurately reflects the gravity of the violation
committed by Respondent.
Regarding the culpability and good faith criteria, PHMSA noted in the Violation Report that
PLLC failed to comply with a requirement that was “clearly applicable,” and that PLLC did not
have a credible justification for its non-compliance.12 There is no dispute that the regulation
requiring PLLC to follow its procedures clearly applied, and that PLLC failed to follow its
procedure.
Finally, § 190.225(b)(2) permits me to consider “other matters as justice may require” in
determining the amount of a civil penalty under Part 195. Under this assessment factor, I find
that the record demonstrates that PLLC did perform the inspections necessary to ensure pipeline
safety, and this fact should be credited when considering justification for a civil penalty in this
case. Further, PLLC’s failure to follow its procedure in this case does not evidence a problem
area with the company as the inspections were performed on the devices, was not causally
related to an incident, was not egregious or willful, and did not significantly increase the
likelihood of a pipeline failure. PLLC’s procedures required them to go above and beyond what
the minimum pipeline safety standards require, and they should be commended for operating in
that manner, not penalized with a civil penalty for failing to properly document the actions
performed. Finally, PLLC is advised to ensure that it follows its procedures going forward as the
procedures assist in the continued safe operation of the pipeline, and a failure to follow
procedures may result in future enforcement, including issuance of a civil penalty.
Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a).
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the 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, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)
and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243.
10 Violation Report, at 8.
11 Id. at 9.
12 Id. at 10.



CPF No. 1-2018-5029
Page 6
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
October 9, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 17604