# BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120195003_Closure Letter_05282020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Closure%20Letter_05282020.pdf

120195003_Closure Letter_05282020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Closure%20Letter_05282020_text.pdf

120195003_Final Order_02112020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Final%20Order_02112020.pdf

120195003_Final Order_02112020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Final%20Order_02112020_text.pdf

120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019.pdf

120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text.pdf

120195003_Operator Response to Notice_04152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195003/120195003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04152019.pdf

120195003_Closure Letter_05282020_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
May 28, 2020
Clark C. Smith
Chairman, President & CEO
Buckeye Partners, L.P.
9999 Hamilton Boulevard
Breinigsville, PA 18031
CPF 1-2019-5003
Dear Mr. Smith:
On February 11, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Buckeye Partners, L.P., a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included
a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you
provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have
complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
March 15, 2019
Clark C. Smith
Chairman, President & CEO
Buckeye Partners, LP
9999 Hamilton Boulevard
Breinigsville, PA 18031
CPF 1-2019-5003
Dear Mr. Smith:
From June 22, 2017, to September 28, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and inspectors from the New York State Department
of Public Services (NYSDPS), acting as agents of PHMSA, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code (U.S.C.), performed an integrated inspection of Buckeye Partners, LP’s (Buckeye)
“Buckeye East” pipeline system located throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected
and the probable violation(s) are:
1. § 195.132 Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.
(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after October 2, 2000,
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires one of the following:



CPF 1-2019-5003
(1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded steel tanks with
nominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2 m3) and with internal
vapor space pressures that are approximately atmospheric must be
designed and constructed in accordance with API Spec 12F (incorporated
by reference, see § 195.3).
(2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not greater than
15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall shapes that can be
generated by a single vertical axis of revolution must be designed and
constructed in accordance with API Std 620 (incorporated by reference,
see § 195.3)
(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at the tank
top approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor space
pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or not greater than the
pressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and
constructed in accordance with API Std 650 (incorporated by reference,
see § 195.3)
(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space pressures
greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of 2000 gallons
(7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) must be designed
and constructed in accordance with API Std 2510 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3)”.
Buckeye failed to design and construct an aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after
October 2, 2000, in accordance with one of the standards required pursuant to § 195.132(b).
Specifically, Buckeye failed to design and construct the shop-fabricated, 476-barrel capacity relief
breakout Tank 3 at its Tuckerton (RG) facility to a standard listed in § 195.132(b).
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed records of aboveground breakout tanks
within Buckeye’s system. Based on a summary spreadsheet of breakout tank data provided by
Buckeye, RG Tank 3 was documented as being designed and constructed in 2010 to the
Underwriters Laboratories 142 (UL 142) standard. UL 142 applies to shop fabricated, steel,
atmospheric tanks in a combination of shapes and orientations. Tank 3 is a welded, fixed roof,
horizontally oriented relief breakout tank with a 476-barrel capacity.
Section 195.132(b) specifies that in order to comply with § 195.132(a), breakout tanks (as defined
in § 195.2) must be designed and constructed in accordance with one of the four standards
(incorporated by reference in § 195.3) listed therein; UL 142 is not listed. Additionally, the API
standards listed in § 195.132(b) are intended for vertically oriented breakout tanks only, while
Tank 3 is horizontally oriented. Thus, Tank 3 was not designed and constructed in accordance
with a specified standard listed in § 195.132(b).
Therefore, Buckeye failed to design and construct its relief Tank 3 at its RG facility to a
specification or standard incorporated by reference into Part 195 and specified in § 195.132(b).
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 2 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
2. § 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.
Buckeye failed to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, Buckeye failed to follow its Corrosion
Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, issued 12/2012, (Procedure A-02),
developed to comply with § 195.575(c),1 by failing to inspect electrical isolation devices at 31
casings during its 2014-2016 annual surveys.
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspectors reviewed Buckeye’s Procedure A-02 and annual
corrosion-control survey records from 2014-2016 (Records) for the following pipeline segments:
 SN714RG-RG714ZG
 ZR802CY
 AN751BO
 BX751AN
 CZ751IX
 IX751WA
Section 9.4 of Procedure A-02 stated:
“Annually during the corrosion control survey, installed electrical isolation devices shall be
inspected for proper operation. Deficiencies shall be noted in the [Cathodic Protection Data
Management (CPDM) System] and work orders initiated for repair or replacement of the deficient
device.”
The Records demonstrated that in 34 instances on 31 different casings, Buckeye failed to inspect
the casing’s electrical isolation from the pipeline for proper operation on an annual basis during
the 2014-2016 timeframe.
Therefore, Buckeye failed to follow its Procedure for annually inspecting electrical isolation
devices in accordance with its Section 9.4.
1 Section 195.575(c) states: “You must inspect and electrically test each electrical isolation to assure the isolation is
adequate.”
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 3 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
3. § 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.
Buckeye failed to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, Buckeye failed to follow its
Corrosion Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, issued 12/12 (Procedure A-02),
which required that abnormalities or equipment deficiencies be corrected within one inspection
cycle or that the company document the reasons why such abnormalities or equipment
deficiencies could not be corrected within that timeframe. Procedure A-02 contained both
requirements under its own internal policies and procedures, as well as how to comply with §
195.573(e) and other corrosion-control regulations under Part 195. 2
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Buckeye’s Procedure A-02. Section 3.7,
which stated in part:
“…Any abnormality or equipment deficiency should be corrected within one inspection cycle.
The reasons that any abnormality or equipment deficiency cannot be corrected within the
timeframe must be documented in the Work Order.”
In the case of cathodic protection monitoring, Buckeye’s procedures and 49 CFR 195.573(a)(1)
require once per calendar year, not to exceed 15-month inspection cycles for protected pipelines.
2 Section 195.573(e) states: “(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion control as
required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under
§ 195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).”
Section 195.401(b) states: “(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the following
requirements:
(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the
safe operation of its pipeline system, it must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the
condition is of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.
(2) Integrity management repairs. When an operator discovers a condition on a pipeline covered under §195.452,
the operator must correct the condition as prescribed in §195.452(h).
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 4 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
During the inspection, the PHMSA and NYDPS inspectors reviewed annual corrosion-control
survey records from 2014-2017 and found the following recorded corrosion deficiencies where
Buckeye failed to take corrective action within one inspection cycle, as required by Procedure A-
02.
Issue #1: Test Leads
Procedure A-02 section 1.9.7 stated:
“All test leads found to be defective (i.e., required readings cannot be obtained) shall be repaired
within one inspection cycle, if other facilities are not readily available to ensure adequate
protection.”
During the Long Island inspection, a NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control survey
records for Buckeye’s Long Island System. At the following test station, the records indicated that
Buckeye failed to correct defective test leads within one inspection cycle. Buckeye also failed to
document in the Work Order why the defective test leads could not be corrected within one
inspection cycle.
Staten Island and Brooklyn to New Lots Junction Section B (2014-2016):
 Paulding & Speedwell Ave MP 5.004.
Issue # 2: Structure-to-Soil Potentials (Low Readings)
Procedure A-02, Sections 2.1.1-2.13, specify the cathodic-protection criteria that Buckeye utilizes
at its test stations:
“2.1.1 A negative structure-to-soil (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the cathodic
protection applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate
reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops other than those across the structure-
to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
Consideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice in determining
the significance of voltage drops using one or more of the following methods: reviewing the
historical performance of the [cathodic protection (CP)] system, physical examinations for
evidence of corrosion, measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s), and/or evaluating
polarization levels.
2.1.2 A negative structure polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated
copper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte.
2.1.3 A minimum of 100 mV of cathodic polarization between the structure surface and a stable
reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. The formation or decay of polarization can be
measured to satisfy this criterion.”
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 5 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control survey records
from 2014-2017 for the MX751RE, RE751AX, SN714RG-RG714ZG, MU720DT, and DT722DG
pipeline segments. At the following 11 test stations, Buckeye’s records designated it was utilizing
the -0.850 Volt IR Free (IRF) criterion for determining adequate cathodic protection, which aligns
with Section 2.1.2 of its Procedure A-02, and requires an IRF voltage more negative than -0.850
Volts. All 2014-2016 readings in the records for the following test stations demonstrated Structure
(pipeline) IRF readings more positive than -0.850 Volts, and did not provide any justification as
to why the required timeframe for remediation of these deficient readings could not be met:
DT722DG (2014-2016):
 Sun PL XNG 217+03
RE751AX (2014-2016):
 CR #85 Indian Creek Road MP 34.91
 Wild Cherry Rd MP 37.020
 CR #88 – Lower Macungie Rd MP 37.54
 CR #89 – East Texas Rd MP 38.050
 CR #93 – Hamilton Blvd. RT 222 MP 39.450
 Walnut St MP 39.972
 Broadway MP 40.358
 Briarcliff Rd. MP 40.397
SN714RG-RG714ZG (2014-2016):
 American Drive XNG Water Line 662+36
MU720DT (2014-2017):
 LR 07014 9686+94
In addition, records reviewed by NYDPS for the Long Island terminal, Test Point 16 sump tank
discharge pipe demonstrated Structure pipe-to-soil (P/S) readings more postive than -0.850 V on
7/3/14 and 10/1/15. The records did not include any Structure IRF readings, indications of which
criterion from Sections 2.1.1 – 2.1.3 of Procedure A-02 was utilized, or justification as to why the
required timeframe for remediation of the deficient reading could not be met.
Therefore, for all the reasons detailed above, Buckeye failed in 26 instances to follow its own
Procedure A-02, which requires that abnormalities or equipment deficiencies be corrected within
one inspection cycle or that the company document the reasons why such abnormalities or
equipment deficiencies could not be corrected within that timeframe.
This violation is a repeat of violations found in CPF 1-2013-5002, Item #1.
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 6 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
4. § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic
protection required by this subpart complies with § 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are
impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated
pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with
intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Buckeye failed to conduct tests on its cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, Buckeye failed to conduct tests at
the required intervals at 20 test stations along the RE751AX pipeline and within its Long Island
Pipeline System between 2014 and 2016.
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control survey records
from 2014-2016 for the MX751RE and RE751AX pipeline segments. At the following three test
stations, Buckeye took CP readings on 6/19/2015 and 10/10/2016, exceeding the 15-month
maximum interval by 21 days:
 SPECTRA (TET) Line #27 (36”) Crossing, 1488+25
 SPECTRA (TET) Line #19 (30”) Crossing, 1488+46
 SPECTRA (TET) Line #12 (24”) Crossing, 1488+72
During the Long Island inspection, the NYSDPS inspector reviewed annual corrosion-control
survey records for the Long Island System, including the Staten Island and Brooklyn to New Lots
Junction (Section B) and the BP-Amoco-Ditmas Shippers Line (Section E). At the following 20
test stations, Buckeye failed in 30 instances to conduct CP tests at least once each calendar year:
Section MP
No.
Test Station
Location
Date
Tested
Pipe-to-Soil
Reading?
Number of
Missed
Calendar-
Year Tests
B 6.532 S. Gannon/
Wooley Ave
6.577 6/26/2014 8/6/2015 11/1/2016 8/6/2015 No reading 3
No reading
No reading
Yes 1
S. Gannon/
Martin Ave
6.916 11/1/2016 6/26/2014 No reading
Yes 2
Clove Lakes
Expwy
6.988 8/6/2015 11/1/2016 8/6/2015 No reading
No reading
Yes 1
S. Gannon/
Bradley
7.599 Manor Road 11/1/2016 6/27/2014 No reading
No reading 2
9/24/2015 No reading
11/1/2016 Yes
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 7 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
7.683 Schmidts
Lane
9/24/2015 Yes 1
E 0.001 11/1/2016 7/24/2014 No reading
Yes 1
Long Island
City Term.
9/2/2015 Yes
11/9/2016 No reading
0.202 Kingsland
Ave/ N.
Henry St
7/10/2014 Yes 2
9/3/2015 No reading
11/9/2016 No reading
0.219 Kingsland
Ave/ N
Henry St
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading
Yes
0.405 Kingsland
Ave/
Greenpoint
Ave
7/10/2014 9/3/2015 11/8/2016 No reading 2
No reading
Yes
0.428 Kingsland
Ave/
Greenpoint
Ave
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading
Yes
0.754 Kingsland
Ave/ Noman
Ave
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 No reading
11/9/2016 Yes
1.056 Varick Ave/
Bridgewater
Street
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 Yes
1.192 11/8/2016 7/10/2014 No reading
Yes 1
Varick/
Meeker Ave
9/3/2015 11/8/2016 No reading
Yes
1.262 Varick/80 Ft
DS MP
1.237
1.279 7/10/2014 9/3/2015 11/9/2016 7/10/2014 No reading 3
No reading
No reading
Yes 2
Varick/
Cherry St
9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading
No reading
1.329 Varick/
Anthony
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 Yes
11/8/2016 No reading
1.382 Varick-284’
DS of MP
1.425
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 No reading
11/9/2016 Yes
1.586 Varick-208’
DS of MP
1.586
7/10/2014 Yes 1
9/3/2015 11/9/2016 No reading
Yes
1.625 7/10/2014 Yes 2
9/3/2015 No reading
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 8 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
Varick-
155Ft DS of
MP 1.644
11/9/2016 No reading
Therefore, Buckeye failed in 33 instances to conduct tests of the cathodic protection on its
protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,
at 20 test stations.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a related
series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015, and before November
27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum
penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to
exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2,
2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum
penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has
reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable
violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $701,400
as follows:
Item number PENALTY
2 $219,600
3 $265,200
4 $216,600
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye Partners, L.P. Please refer to
the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All
material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you
believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5
U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the
document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an
explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under
5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a
hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,
this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 9 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further
notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you
submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period
may be extended by written request for good cause.
Please submit all correspondence in this matter to Robert Burrough, Director, PHMSA Eastern
Region, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 300, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628. Please refer to
CPF 1-2019-5003 on each document you submit, and whenever possible provide a signed PDF
copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files
should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.
Additionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response
letter pertains solely to one CPF case number.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 10 of 11



CPF 1-2019-5003
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye) a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. Regarding Item Number 1 of the Notice, pertaining to Buckeye’s failure to
construct Tank 3 at its Tuckerton (RG) facility in accordance with the standards
required within § 195.132(b), Buckeye must complete one of the following actions
within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order:
a. Apply for a special permit with PHMSA for the continued operation of the
breakout tank. Tank 3 must be removed and isolated from service until such
time that the special permit receives approval.
b. Permanently remove the breakout tank from operation.
Upon completion, Buckeye shall provide records demonstrating the removal of the
tank from service (b. above), if elected.
It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two
categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,
studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and
other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
120195003_NOPV-PCP-PCO_03152019_text Page 11 of 11

120195003_Final Order_02112020_text.pdf

February 11, 2020
Mr. Clark C. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
Buckeye Partners, LP
One Greenway Plaza, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77046
Re: CPF No. 1-2019-5003
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $616,200, and specifies actions that need to be
taken by Buckeye Partners, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is 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
Mr. William Hollis, Senior Vice President and President, Buckeye Services, Buckeye
Partners, LP, One Greenway Plaza, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77046
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Buckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2019-5003
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From June 22 through September 28, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), and inspectors from the New York State Department of Public Services, acting as agents
of PHMSA, performed an integrated pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of
Buckeye Partners, LP’s (Buckeye or Respondent) “Buckeye East” pipeline system located
throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Buckeye operates approximately 6,000
miles of pipeline and stores and transports refined petroleum products from the Midwestern to
the Eastern part of the U.S.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated March 15, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Buckeye had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $701,400 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Buckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated April 15, 2019 (Response). The company
contested two of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Mar. 15, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;
Buckeye Partners, LP website, available at https://www.buckeye.com/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last accessed
January 17, 2020).



CPF No. 1-2019-5003
Page 2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.132(b), which states:
§ 195.132 Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.
(a) …
(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after October
2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires one of the
following:
(1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded steel tanks
with nominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2 m3) and with
internal vapor space pressures that are approximately atmospheric must be
designed and constructed in accordance with API Spec 12F (incorporated
by reference, see § 195.3).
(2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not greater
than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall shapes that can
be generated by a single vertical axis of revolution must be designed and
constructed in accordance with API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3).
(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at the
tank top approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor space
pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or not greater than the
pressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and
constructed in accordance with API Std 650 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3).
(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space pressures
greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of 2000 gallons
(7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) must be designed
and constructed in accordance with API Std 2510 (incorporated by
reference, see § 195.3).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.132(b) by failing to design and
construct an aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after October 2, 2000, in
accordance with one of the standards required pursuant to § 195.132(b). Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Buckeye failed to design and construct the shop-fabricated, 476-barrel capacity relief
breakout Tank 3 at its Tuckerton (RG) facility to a standard listed in § 195.132(b).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.132(b) by failing to design and
construct an aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after October 2, 2000, in
accordance with one of the standards required pursuant to § 195.132(b).
Item 2: 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



CPF No. 1-2019-5003
Page 3
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. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye did not follow its
Corrosion Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, developed to comply with
§ 195.575(c), by failing to inspect electrical isolation devices at 31 casings during its 2014-2016
annual surveys. The Notice alleged that Buckeye’s records demonstrated that in 34 instances,
Buckeye failed to inspect the casing’s electrical isolation from the pipeline for proper operation
on an annual basis during the 2014-2016 timeframe.
In its Response, Buckeye provided additional information regarding seven of the alleged
instances of missed annual casing-to-soil potential readings and therefore requested that the
number of instances be reduced from 34 to 27. This information included:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Buckeye identified three instances at two casings where records demonstrated that test
points on each end of the casing were present, and one end was utilized in the given year
to take a casing-to-soil reading. Buckeye contended that these counts should therefore be
withdrawn because a casing isolation reading was taken each year on the casing, just not
at both test points available.
Buckeye identified one casing which had two test points associated with it for the ends of
the casing. Buckeye determined it had been inadvertently counted as two instances rather
than one.
Buckeye identified one casing at which the test station was marked as missing, but had in
fact been repaired within one inspection cycle in accordance with its procedures and was
verified as isolated during the subsequent annual survey in 2017 after the test station
repair.
Buckeye identified one instance where there is no casing, and the casing readings
recorded in the 2015/2016 records were actually IR-drop test leads that were
inadvertently recorded as casing readings. Buckeye stated it corrected its corrosion
database to reflect the lack of a casing at this location.
Buckeye identified one instance where a casing had previously been removed. Buckeye
stated that the former casing’s wires remained in the test station, and thus imply that these
were read and recorded in the records reviewed for 2014 and 2016. Buckeye stated it
corrected its corrosion database to reflect the lack of a casing at this location.
After considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent has demonstrated that the number of
instances should be reduced from 34 to 27. Accordingly, I find 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; however, I reduce the number of



CPF No. 1-2019-5003
Page 4
instances of the violation from 34 to 27.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(b), 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(b) by failing to follow, for
each pipeline system, a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and
maintenance activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to follow its
Corrosion Manual, Procedure A-02 External Corrosion Control, which required that
abnormalities or equipment deficiencies be corrected within one inspection cycle or that the
company document the reasons why such abnormalities or equipment deficiencies could not be
corrected within that timeframe.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(b) by failing to follow for
each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and
maintenance activities.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?.
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine
whether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with
§ 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those
intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or
ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3
calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on its cathodically protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed in 33 instances to
conduct tests at the required intervals at test stations along the RE751AX pipeline and within its
Long Island Pipeline System between 2014 and 2016.



CPF No. 1-2019-5003
Page 5
In its Response, Buckeye contested 22 of the 33 instances cited and requested that they be
withdrawn. Buckeye explained that certain test points had been found paved over or otherwise
damaged such that the readings could not be obtained as planned. Many of the test points,
however, were remediated and tested within the timeframe established by the regulation. In
particular, for 17 of those 22 instances, Buckeye provided additional records confirming testing
within the regulatory interval. I find Respondent has demonstrated compliance with respect to
those 17 contested instances.
For the remaining five contested instances, I find that in all cases, based on the records provided
by Buckeye, the regulatory interval of 15 months was exceeded. These instances have therefore
not been withdrawn.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. MP 0.405 - Kingsland Ave/Greenpoint Ave, 2015: Read on 4/10/14 and then on 10/6/16,
an interval of 30 months.
MP 1.192 - Varick Ave/Meeker Ave, 2015: Read on 7/10/14 and then on 10/6/16, an
interval of 27 months.
MP 1.262 - Varick Ave/80 Ft. DS MP 1.237, 2015 and 2016: Read on 7/10/14 and then
on 12/3/17, an interval of 29 months.
MP 1.382 - Varick-284’ DS of MP 1.425, 2015: Read on 7/10/14 and then on 10/6/16, an
interval of 27 months.
MP 1.586 - Varick-208’ DS of MP 1.586, 2015: Read on 7/10/14 and then on 10/6/16, an
interval of 27 months.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(a)(1) by failed to conduct tests on its cathodically protected pipelines at least once
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months; however, I reduce the number of
instances of the violation from 33 to 16.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
re
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 51612