{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120195003","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-03-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.132(b), 195.402(a), 195.573(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120195003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120195003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120195003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120195003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.132(b),  195.402(a),  195.573(a)(1). The case was opened on 2019-03-15 and is reported as closed as of 2020-05-28. Proposed civil penalty: $701,400. Assessed civil penalty: $616,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120195003_Closure Letter_05282020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Closure%20Letter_05282020.pdf\n\n120195003_Closure Letter_05282020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Closure%20Letter_05282020_text.pdf\n\n120195003_Final Order_02112020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Final%20Order_02112020.pdf\n\n120195003_Final Order_02112020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Final%20Order_02112020_text.pdf\n\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019.pdf\n\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text.pdf\n\n120195003_Operator Response to Notice_04152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04152019.pdf\n\n120195003_Closure Letter_05282020_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMay 28, 2020\nClark C. Smith\nChairman, President & CEO\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nDear Mr. Smith:\nOn February 11, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Buckeye Partners, L.P., a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied 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\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMarch 15, 2019\nClark C. Smith\nChairman, President & CEO\nBuckeye Partners, LP\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nDear Mr. Smith:\nFrom June 22, 2017, to September 28, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and inspectors from the New York State Department\nof Public Services (NYSDPS), acting as agents of PHMSA, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code (U.S.C.), performed an integrated inspection of Buckeye Partners, LP’s (Buckeye)\n“Buckeye East” pipeline system located throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violation(s) are:\n1. § 195.132 Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.\n(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after October 2, 2000,\ncompliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires one of the following:\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\n(1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded steel tanks with\nnominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2 m3) and with internal\nvapor space pressures that are approximately atmospheric must be\ndesigned and constructed in accordance with API Spec 12F (incorporated\nby reference, see § 195.3).\n(2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not greater than\n15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall shapes that can be\ngenerated by a single vertical axis of revolution must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Std 620 (incorporated by reference,\nsee § 195.3)\n(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at the tank\ntop approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor space\npressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or not greater than the\npressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Std 650 (incorporated by reference,\nsee § 195.3)\n(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space pressures\ngreater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of 2000 gallons\n(7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) must be designed\nand constructed in accordance with API Std 2510 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3)”.\nBuckeye failed to design and construct an aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after\nOctober 2, 2000, in accordance with one of the standards required pursuant to § 195.132(b).\nSpecifically, Buckeye failed to design and construct the shop-fabricated, 476-barrel capacity relief\nbreakout Tank 3 at its Tuckerton (RG) facility to a standard listed in § 195.132(b).\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed records of aboveground breakout tanks\nwithin Buckeye’s system. Based on a summary spreadsheet of breakout tank data provided by\nBuckeye, RG Tank 3 was documented as being designed and constructed in 2010 to the\nUnderwriters Laboratories 142 (UL 142) standard. UL 142 applies to shop fabricated, steel,\natmospheric tanks in a combination of shapes and orientations. Tank 3 is a welded, fixed roof,\nhorizontally oriented relief breakout tank with a 476-barrel capacity.\nSection 195.132(b) specifies that in order to comply with § 195.132(a), breakout tanks (as defined\nin § 195.2) must be designed and constructed in accordance with one of the four standards\n(incorporated by reference in § 195.3) listed therein; UL 142 is not listed. Additionally, the API\nstandards listed in § 195.132(b) are intended for vertically oriented breakout tanks only, while\nTank 3 is horizontally oriented. Thus, Tank 3 was not designed and constructed in accordance\nwith a specified standard listed in § 195.132(b).\nTherefore, Buckeye failed to design and construct its relief Tank 3 at its RG facility to a\nspecification or standard incorporated by reference into Part 195 and specified in § 195.132(b).\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 2 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\n2. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nBuckeye failed to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, Buckeye failed to follow its Corrosion\nManual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, issued 12/2012, (Procedure A-02),\ndeveloped to comply with § 195.575(c),1 by failing to inspect electrical isolation devices at 31\ncasings during its 2014-2016 annual surveys.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspectors reviewed Buckeye’s Procedure A-02 and annual\ncorrosion-control survey records from 2014-2016 (Records) for the following pipeline segments:\n SN714RG-RG714ZG\n ZR802CY\n AN751BO\n BX751AN\n CZ751IX\n IX751WA\nSection 9.4 of Procedure A-02 stated:\n“Annually during the corrosion control survey, installed electrical isolation devices shall be\ninspected for proper operation. Deficiencies shall be noted in the [Cathodic Protection Data\nManagement (CPDM) System] and work orders initiated for repair or replacement of the deficient\ndevice.”\nThe Records demonstrated that in 34 instances on 31 different casings, Buckeye failed to inspect\nthe casing’s electrical isolation from the pipeline for proper operation on an annual basis during\nthe 2014-2016 timeframe.\nTherefore, Buckeye failed to follow its Procedure for annually inspecting electrical isolation\ndevices in accordance with its Section 9.4.\n1 Section 195.575(c) states: “You must inspect and electrically test each electrical isolation to assure the isolation is\nadequate.”\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 3 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\n3. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This\nmanual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that\nthe manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations\nof a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nBuckeye failed to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, Buckeye failed to follow its\nCorrosion Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, issued 12/12 (Procedure A-02),\nwhich required that abnormalities or equipment deficiencies be corrected within one inspection\ncycle or that the company document the reasons why such abnormalities or equipment\ndeficiencies could not be corrected within that timeframe. Procedure A-02 contained both\nrequirements under its own internal policies and procedures, as well as how to comply with §\n195.573(e) and other corrosion-control regulations under Part 195. 2\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Buckeye’s Procedure A-02. Section 3.7,\nwhich stated in part:\n“…Any abnormality or equipment deficiency should be corrected within one inspection cycle.\nThe reasons that any abnormality or equipment deficiency cannot be corrected within the\ntimeframe must be documented in the Work Order.”\nIn the case of cathodic protection monitoring, Buckeye’s procedures and 49 CFR 195.573(a)(1)\nrequire once per calendar year, not to exceed 15-month inspection cycles for protected pipelines.\n2 Section 195.573(e) states: “(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as\nrequired by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under\n§ 195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).”\nSection 195.401(b) states: “(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the following\nrequirements:\n(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the\nsafe operation of its pipeline system, it must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the\ncondition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not\noperate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.\n(2) Integrity management repairs. When an operator discovers a condition on a pipeline covered under §195.452,\nthe operator must correct the condition as prescribed in §195.452(h).\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 4 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA and NYDPS inspectors reviewed annual corrosion-control\nsurvey records from 2014-2017 and found the following recorded corrosion deficiencies where\nBuckeye failed to take corrective action within one inspection cycle, as required by Procedure A-\n02.\nIssue #1: Test Leads\nProcedure A-02 section 1.9.7 stated:\n“All test leads found to be defective (i.e., required readings cannot be obtained) shall be repaired\nwithin one inspection cycle, if other facilities are not readily available to ensure adequate\nprotection.”\nDuring the Long Island inspection, a NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control survey\nrecords for Buckeye’s Long Island System. At the following test station, the records indicated that\nBuckeye failed to correct defective test leads within one inspection cycle. Buckeye also failed to\ndocument in the Work Order why the defective test leads could not be corrected within one\ninspection cycle.\nStaten Island and Brooklyn to New Lots Junction Section B (2014-2016):\n Paulding & Speedwell Ave MP 5.004.\nIssue # 2: Structure-to-Soil Potentials (Low Readings)\nProcedure A-02, Sections 2.1.1-2.13, specify the cathodic-protection criteria that Buckeye utilizes\nat its test stations:\n“2.1.1 A negative structure-to-soil (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the cathodic\nprotection applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate\nreference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops other than those across the structure-\nto-electrolyte boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.\nConsideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in determining\nthe significance of voltage drops using one or more of the following methods: reviewing the\nhistorical performance of the [cathodic protection (CP)] system, physical examinations for\nevidence of corrosion, measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s), and/or evaluating\npolarization levels.\n2.1.2 A negative structure polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated\ncopper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte.\n2.1.3 A minimum of 100 mV of cathodic polarization between the structure surface and a stable\nreference electrode contacting the electrolyte. The formation or decay of polarization can be\nmeasured to satisfy this criterion.”\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 5 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control survey records\nfrom 2014-2017 for the MX751RE, RE751AX, SN714RG-RG714ZG, MU720DT, and DT722DG\npipeline segments. At the following 11 test stations, Buckeye’s records designated it was utilizing\nthe -0.850 Volt IR Free (IRF) criterion for determining adequate cathodic protection, which aligns\nwith Section 2.1.2 of its Procedure A-02, and requires an IRF voltage more negative than -0.850\nVolts. All 2014-2016 readings in the records for the following test stations demonstrated Structure\n(pipeline) IRF readings more positive than -0.850 Volts, and did not provide any justification as\nto why the required timeframe for remediation of these deficient readings could not be met:\nDT722DG (2014-2016):\n Sun PL XNG 217+03\nRE751AX (2014-2016):\n CR #85 Indian Creek Road MP 34.91\n Wild Cherry Rd MP 37.020\n CR #88 – Lower Macungie Rd MP 37.54\n CR #89 – East Texas Rd MP 38.050\n CR #93 – Hamilton Blvd. RT 222 MP 39.450\n Walnut St MP 39.972\n Broadway MP 40.358\n Briarcliff Rd. MP 40.397\nSN714RG-RG714ZG (2014-2016):\n American Drive XNG Water Line 662+36\nMU720DT (2014-2017):\n LR 07014 9686+94\nIn addition, records reviewed by NYDPS for the Long Island terminal, Test Point 16 sump tank\ndischarge pipe demonstrated Structure pipe-to-soil (P/S) readings more postive than -0.850 V on\n7/3/14 and 10/1/15. The records did not include any Structure IRF readings, indications of which\ncriterion from Sections 2.1.1 – 2.1.3 of Procedure A-02 was utilized, or justification as to why the\nrequired timeframe for remediation of the deficient reading could not be met.\nTherefore, for all the reasons detailed above, Buckeye failed in 26 instances to follow its own\nProcedure A-02, which requires that abnormalities or equipment deficiencies be corrected within\none inspection cycle or that the company document the reasons why such abnormalities or\nequipment deficiencies could not be corrected within that timeframe.\nThis violation is a repeat of violations found in CPF 1-2013-5002, Item #1.\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 6 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\n4. § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic\nprotection required by this subpart complies with § 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are\nimpractical for separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated\npipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months.\nBuckeye failed to conduct tests on its cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, Buckeye failed to conduct tests at\nthe required intervals at 20 test stations along the RE751AX pipeline and within its Long Island\nPipeline System between 2014 and 2016.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control survey records\nfrom 2014-2016 for the MX751RE and RE751AX pipeline segments. At the following three test\nstations, Buckeye took CP readings on 6/19/2015 and 10/10/2016, exceeding the 15-month\nmaximum interval by 21 days:\n SPECTRA (TET) Line #27 (36”) Crossing, 1488+25\n SPECTRA (TET) Line #19 (30”) Crossing, 1488+46\n SPECTRA (TET) Line #12 (24”) Crossing, 1488+72\nDuring the Long Island inspection, the NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control\nsurvey records for the Long Island System, including the Staten Island and Brooklyn to New Lots\nJunction (Section B) and the BP-Amoco-Ditmas Shippers Line (Section E). At the following 20\ntest stations, Buckeye failed in 30 instances to conduct CP tests at least once each calendar year:\nSection MP\nNo.\nTest Station\nLocation\nDate\nTested\nPipe-to-Soil\nReading?\nNumber of\nMissed\nCalendar-\nYear Tests\nB 6.532 S. Gannon/\nWooley Ave\n6.577 6/26/2014 8/6/2015 11/1/2016 8/6/2015 No reading 3\nNo reading\nNo reading\nYes 1\nS. Gannon/\nMartin Ave\n6.916 11/1/2016 6/26/2014 No reading\nYes 2\nClove Lakes\nExpwy\n6.988 8/6/2015 11/1/2016 8/6/2015 No reading\nNo reading\nYes 1\nS. Gannon/\nBradley\n7.599 Manor Road 11/1/2016 6/27/2014 No reading\nNo reading 2\n9/24/2015 No reading\n11/1/2016 Yes\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 7 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\n7.683 Schmidts\nLane\n9/24/2015 Yes 1\nE 0.001 11/1/2016 7/24/2014 No reading\nYes 1\nLong Island\nCity Term.\n9/2/2015 Yes\n11/9/2016 No reading\n0.202 Kingsland\nAve/ N.\nHenry St\n7/10/2014 Yes 2\n9/3/2015 No reading\n11/9/2016 No reading\n0.219 Kingsland\nAve/ N\nHenry St\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading\nYes\n0.405 Kingsland\nAve/\nGreenpoint\nAve\n7/10/2014 9/3/2015 11/8/2016 No reading 2\nNo reading\nYes\n0.428 Kingsland\nAve/\nGreenpoint\nAve\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading\nYes\n0.754 Kingsland\nAve/ Noman\nAve\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 No reading\n11/9/2016 Yes\n1.056 Varick Ave/\nBridgewater\nStreet\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 Yes\n1.192 11/8/2016 7/10/2014 No reading\nYes 1\nVarick/\nMeeker Ave\n9/3/2015 11/8/2016 No reading\nYes\n1.262 Varick/80 Ft\nDS MP\n1.237\n1.279 7/10/2014 9/3/2015 11/9/2016 7/10/2014 No reading 3\nNo reading\nNo reading\nYes 2\nVarick/\nCherry St\n9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading\nNo reading\n1.329 Varick/\nAnthony\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 Yes\n11/8/2016 No reading\n1.382 Varick-284’\nDS of MP\n1.425\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 No reading\n11/9/2016 Yes\n1.586 Varick-208’\nDS of MP\n1.586\n7/10/2014 Yes 1\n9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading\nYes\n1.625 7/10/2014 Yes 2\n9/3/2015 No reading\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 8 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nVarick-\n155Ft DS of\nMP 1.644\n11/9/2016 No reading\nTherefore, Buckeye failed in 33 instances to conduct tests of the cathodic protection on its\nprotected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nat 20 test stations.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015, and before November\n27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2,\n2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $701,400\nas follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $219,600\n3 $265,200\n4 $216,600\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye Partners, L.P. Please refer to\nthe Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 9 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Robert Burrough, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 300, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628. Please refer to\nCPF 1-2019-5003 on each document you submit, and whenever possible provide a signed PDF\ncopy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files\nshould be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nAdditionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response\nletter pertains solely to one CPF case number.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 10 of 11\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2019-5003\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. Regarding Item Number 1 of the Notice, pertaining to Buckeye’s failure to\nconstruct Tank 3 at its Tuckerton (RG) facility in accordance with the standards\nrequired within § 195.132(b), Buckeye must complete one of the following actions\nwithin 90 days of receipt of the Final Order:\na. Apply for a special permit with PHMSA for the continued operation of the\nbreakout tank. Tank 3 must be removed and isolated from service until such\ntime that the special permit receives approval.\nb. Permanently remove the breakout tank from operation.\nUpon completion, Buckeye shall provide records demonstrating the removal of the\ntank from service (b. above), if elected.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 11 of 11\n\n120195003_Final Order_02112020_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 11, 2020\nMr. Clark C. Smith\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza, Suite 600\nHouston, Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2019-5003\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $616,200, and specifies actions that need to be\ntaken by Buckeye Partners, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. William Hollis, Senior Vice President and President, Buckeye Services, Buckeye\nPartners, LP, One Greenway Plaza, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77046\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. 1-2019-5003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 22 through September 28, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), and inspectors from the New York State Department of Public Services, acting as agents\nof PHMSA, performed an integrated pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nBuckeye Partners, LP’s (Buckeye or Respondent) “Buckeye East” pipeline system located\nthroughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Buckeye operates approximately 6,000\nmiles of pipeline and stores and transports refined petroleum products from the Midwestern to\nthe Eastern part of the U.S.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated March 15, 2019, 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 committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $701,400 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated April 15, 2019 (Response). The company\ncontested two of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Mar. 15, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;\nBuckeye Partners, LP website, available at https://www.buckeye.com/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last accessed\nJanuary 17, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5003\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.132(b), which states:\n§ 195.132 Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) …\n(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after October\n2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires one of the\nfollowing:\n(1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded steel tanks\nwith nominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2 m3) and with\ninternal vapor space pressures that are approximately atmospheric must be\ndesigned and constructed in accordance with API Spec 12F (incorporated\nby reference, see § 195.3).\n(2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not greater\nthan 15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall shapes that can\nbe generated by a single vertical axis of revolution must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 195.3).\n(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at the\ntank top approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor space\npressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or not greater than the\npressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Std 650 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 195.3).\n(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space pressures\ngreater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of 2000 gallons\n(7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) must be designed\nand constructed in accordance with API Std 2510 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.132(b) by failing to design and\nconstruct an aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after October 2, 2000, in\naccordance with one of the standards required pursuant to § 195.132(b). Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Buckeye failed to design and construct the shop-fabricated, 476-barrel capacity relief\nbreakout Tank 3 at its Tuckerton (RG) facility to a standard listed in § 195.132(b).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.132(b) by failing to design and\nconstruct an aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after October 2, 2000, in\naccordance with one of the standards required pursuant to § 195.132(b).\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\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\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5003\nPage 3\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 made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared 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, for\neach pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye did not follow its\nCorrosion Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, developed to comply with\n§ 195.575(c), by failing to inspect electrical isolation devices at 31 casings during its 2014-2016\nannual surveys. The Notice alleged that Buckeye’s records demonstrated that in 34 instances,\nBuckeye failed to inspect the casing’s electrical isolation from the pipeline for proper operation\non an annual basis during the 2014-2016 timeframe.\nIn its Response, Buckeye provided additional information regarding seven of the alleged\ninstances of missed annual casing-to-soil potential readings and therefore requested that the\nnumber of instances be reduced from 34 to 27. This information included:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Buckeye identified three instances at two casings where records demonstrated that test\npoints on each end of the casing were present, and one end was utilized in the given year\nto take a casing-to-soil reading. Buckeye contended that these counts should therefore be\nwithdrawn because a casing isolation reading was taken each year on the casing, just not\nat both test points available.\nBuckeye identified one casing which had two test points associated with it for the ends of\nthe casing. Buckeye determined it had been inadvertently counted as two instances rather\nthan one.\nBuckeye identified one casing at which the test station was marked as missing, but had in\nfact been repaired within one inspection cycle in accordance with its procedures and was\nverified as isolated during the subsequent annual survey in 2017 after the test station\nrepair.\nBuckeye identified one instance where there is no casing, and the casing readings\nrecorded in the 2015/2016 records were actually IR-drop test leads that were\ninadvertently recorded as casing readings. Buckeye stated it corrected its corrosion\ndatabase to reflect the lack of a casing at this location.\nBuckeye identified one instance where a casing had previously been removed. Buckeye\nstated that the former casing’s wires remained in the test station, and thus imply that these\nwere read and recorded in the records reviewed for 2014 and 2016. Buckeye stated it\ncorrected its corrosion database to reflect the lack of a casing at this location.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent has demonstrated that the number of\ninstances should be reduced from 34 to 27. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures\nfor conducting normal operations and maintenance activities; however, I reduce the number of\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5003\nPage 4\ninstances of the violation from 34 to 27.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(b), which states:\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 made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared 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(b) by failing to follow, for\neach pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to follow its\nCorrosion Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, which required that\nabnormalities or equipment deficiencies be corrected within one inspection cycle or that the\ncompany document the reasons why such abnormalities or equipment deficiencies could not be\ncorrected within that timeframe.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(b) by failing to follow for\neach pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities.\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\ntests on its cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed in 33 instances to\nconduct tests at the required intervals at test stations along the RE751AX pipeline and within its\nLong Island Pipeline System between 2014 and 2016.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5003\nPage 5\nIn its Response, Buckeye contested 22 of the 33 instances cited and requested that they be\nwithdrawn. Buckeye explained that certain test points had been found paved over or otherwise\ndamaged such that the readings could not be obtained as planned. Many of the test points,\nhowever, were remediated and tested within the timeframe established by the regulation. In\nparticular, for 17 of those 22 instances, Buckeye provided additional records confirming testing\nwithin the regulatory interval. I find Respondent has demonstrated compliance with respect to\nthose 17 contested instances.\nFor the remaining five contested instances, I find that in all cases, based on the records provided\nby Buckeye, the regulatory interval of 15 months was exceeded. These instances have therefore\nnot been withdrawn.\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. MP 0.405 - Kingsland Ave/Greenpoint Ave, 2015: Read on 4/10/14 and then on 10/6/16,\nan interval of 30 months.\nMP 1.192 - Varick Ave/Meeker Ave, 2015: Read on 7/10/14 and then on 10/6/16, an\ninterval of 27 months.\nMP 1.262 - Varick Ave/80 Ft. DS MP 1.237, 2015 and 2016: Read on 7/10/14 and then\non 12/3/17, an interval of 29 months.\nMP 1.382 - Varick-284’ DS of MP 1.425, 2015: Read on 7/10/14 and then on 10/6/16, an\ninterval of 27 months.\nMP 1.586 - Varick-208’ DS of MP 1.586, 2015: Read on 7/10/14 and then on 10/6/16, an\ninterval of 27 months.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a)(1) by failed to conduct tests on its cathodically protected pipelines at least once\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months; however, I reduce the number of\ninstances of the violation from 33 to 16.\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\nre","truncated":true,"body_characters":51612}