{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220116003","title":"NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY-BROSNAN YARD PIPELINE — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-02-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(12), 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(c)(4), 195.403(a), 195.404(a)(3), 195.440(a)(i), 195.573(a)(2), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220116003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220116003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220116003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220116003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY-BROSNAN YARD PIPELINE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(12),  195.402(c)(13),  195.402(c)(4),  195.403(a),  195.404(a)(3),  195.440(a)(i),  195.573(a)(2),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2011-02-16 and is reported as closed as of 2011-12-06. Proposed civil penalty: $126,000. Assessed civil penalty: $126,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220116003_Final Order_11212011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220116003/220116003_Final%20Order_11212011.pdf\n\n220116003_Final Order_11212011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220116003/220116003_Final%20Order_11212011_text.pdf\n\n220116003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02162011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220116003/220116003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02162011.pdf\n\n220116003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02162011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220116003/220116003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02162011_text.pdf\n\n220116003_Final Order_11212011_text.pdf\n\nNOV 21 2011\nMr. Tim Heilig\nVice President of Mechanical Operations\nNorfolk Southern Corporation\n1200 Peachtree Street, N.E. (Box: 184)\nAtlanta, GA 30309\nRe: CPF No. 2-2011-6003\nDear Mr. Heilig:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $126,000. It further finds that Norfolk Southern\nCorporation has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety\nMr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, OPS Southern Region\nMs. A. Gayle Jordan, General Solicitor-Environmental, Norfolk Southern Corporation\nMr. Brian Ball, Energy Logistics, Buckeye Development & Logistics, LLC\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164202812672]\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 )\nNorfolk Southern Corporation, ) CPF No 2-2011-6003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn December 13-14, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Norfolk Southern\nCorporation (Norfolk or Respondent) in Macon, Georgia. Respondent operates 5.5 miles of\ndiesel fuel pipeline in Macon.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 16, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nNorfolk had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $126,000, and proposed requiring that Respondent take certain measures to comply\nwith the regulations. The warning items required no further action, but advised the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible enforcement action.\nNorfolk responded to the Notice by letter dated March 17, 2011 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Norfolk did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\n1 http://www.nscorp.com/(last accessed 8/11/2011).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(4), 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 . . ..\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) . . .\n(4) Determining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that\nwould require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to\nthe public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned.\nThe Notice alleged that Norfolk violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(4) by failing to follow its\nwritten procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies (O&M Manual).2\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the company failed to follow its procedures requiring the\npipeline that would require an immediate response to prevent hazards to the public if the\ncompany to identify pipeline facilities located in High Consequence Areas (HCAs)3 along its\nfacilities failed or malfunctioned.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(4) by failing to follow its\nown written procedures for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12), which states:\n2 Norfolk Southern Corporation, Procedural Manual for Operation, Maintenance, and Emergencies; Brosnan Yard\nPipeline; December 2010, (PMOME) Section 1 - Procedural Manual for Operation, Maintenance, and Emergencies,\nRevision 2, December 2010. This section states: “This Section requires operators to determine which pipeline\nfacilities/segments are located within areas that would require an immediate response by the operator to prevent\nhazards to the public in the event ‘the facilities failed or malfunctioned’. High Consequence Areas (HCA’s) within\nthe pipeline area are defined in NSR’s Integrity Management Plan (Part 2). Sections of the pipeline that traverse\nsensitive environments, as defined by 49 CFR Part 194, are described in Sections 1 and 9 of Norfolk Southern’s\nResponse Plan located in Part 4.” See Exhibit A, Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Feb. 16, 2011) (Violation\nReport), at 2.\n3 A “High Consequence Area\n” is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 195.450 as:\n(1) A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial likelihood of\ncommercial navigation exists;\n(2) A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined and delineated by the Census\nBureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile;\n(3) An other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the Census Bureau, that\ncontains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or other\ndesignated residential or commercial area;\n(4) An unusually sensitive area, as defined in § 195.6.\n\n\n\n3\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) ….\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) . . .\n(12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other\nappropriate public officials to learn the responsibility and resources of\neach government organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide pipeline emergency and acquaint the officials with the\noperator's ability in responding to a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\npipeline emergency and means of communication.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12) by failing to establish\nand maintain liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public officials who may respond to\nan emergency on Norfolk’s pipeline. PHMSA asserted that Norfolk personnel had stated that\nwhile the Company had met with fire department personnel about potential emergencies at the\nrailroad yard, they had not discussed the pipeline.\nRespondent acknowledged that it had not discussed the pipeline with local emergency response\nofficials, but stated that it had discussed the risks of oil spills from tanks in the railroad yard.\nThe company advised PHMSA of its intent to contact local emergency response officials in order\nto comply with the regulation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12) by failing to establish and maintain liaison\nwith fire, police, and other appropriate public officials to learn the responsibility and resources of\neach government organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline\nemergency.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(a)(1-5), which states:\n§ 195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a) Each operator shall establish and conduct a continuing training\nprogram to instruct emergency response personnel to:\n(1) Carry out the emergency procedures established under 195.402\nthat relate to their assignments;\n(2) Know the characteristics and hazards of the hazardous liquids or\ncarbon dioxide transported, including, in case of flammable HVL,\nflammability of mixtures with air, odorless vapors, and water reactions;\n(3) Recognize conditions that are likely to cause emergencies, predict\nthe consequences of facility malfunctions or failures and hazardous liquids\nor carbon dioxide spills, and take appropriate corrective action;\n(4) Take steps necessary to control any accidental release of\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide and to minimize the potential for fire,\nexplosion, toxicity, or environmental damage; and\n(5) Learn the potential causes, types, sizes, and consequences of fire\nand the appropriate use of portable fire extinguishers and other on-site fire\n\n\n\n4\ncontrol equipment, involving, where feasible, a simulated pipeline\nemergency condition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(a)(1-5) by failing to establish\nand conduct a continuing training program to instruct its personnel on how to respond to an\nemergency on its pipeline. PHMSA asserted that Norfolk did not have records or any other\ndocumentation to demonstrate that its personnel had been trained to respond to pipeline\nemergencies, as described in the company’s O&M Manual.\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. § 195.403(a)(1-5) by failing to\nestablish and conduct a continuing training program to instruct emergency response personnel on\nhow to recognize and respond to pipeline emergencies.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) . . .\n(i) The operator’s program documentation and evaluation results must\nbe available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to implement a\nwritten continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided in [American\nPetroleum Institute (API)] Recommended Practice 1162. PHMSA asserted that Norfolk did not\nhave any documentation available for review to demonstrate that its public awareness program\nhad actually been implemented.\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. § 195.440(a) by failing to implement a\nwritten continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided in API\nRecommended Practice 1162.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(2), 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) . . .\n(2) Identify not more than 2 years after cathodic protection is\ninstalled, the circumstances in which a close-interval survey or\ncomparable technology is practicable and necessary to accomplish the\nobjectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3).\n\n\n\n5\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(2) by failing to identify the\ncircumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology was practicable and\nnecessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169. PHMSA\nasserted that Norfolk’s O&M Manual did not address or contain procedures necessary to\naccomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169.\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. § 195.573(a)(2) by failing to identify\nthe circumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology was practicable and\nnecessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169 within the\nrequired two-year interval.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) . . .\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain\ncurrent records for the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of its pipeline system. PHMSA\nasserted that Norfolk’s MOP records were inconsistent and unclear. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Norfolk had hydrostatically pressure-tested the pipeline to 374 psig on August 31,\n2006, as part of its integrity management program, yet recorded this MOP differently in two\nseparate manuals and did not have records to show how the MOP had been established.\nNorfolk’s records listed the MOP as 265 psig in one place but as 450 psig in another. After a\nreview of the company’s records, PHMSA maintained that the 374 psig test pressure could\nvalidate 265 psig, but not 450 psig, as the proper MOP.\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. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain\ncurrent records for the MOP of its pipeline system.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\n\n\n\n6\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $126,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(4), for failing to follow its own procedures for identifying pipeline facilities in\nHCAs requiring an immediate response to prevent hazards to the public if the facilities failed or\nmalfunctioned. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Norfolk contended,\nhowever, that the proposed penalty should be mitigated because a series of maps detailing\nsegments of the pipeline and their relation to HCAs was included in Appendix A of its Integrity\nManagement Program (IMP), and a macro version map was included in the company’s IMP and\nPublic Awareness Program. The company acknowledged that these HCA maps were not in its\nO&M Manual at the time of the inspection. Norfolk also contended that because its pipeline was\nonly 5.5 miles, its personnel were instructed to respond immediately to any failure, irrespective\nof where it occurred on the pipeline.4\nI find these arguments unpersuasive. First, the company’s O&M Manual did not indicate how\nNorfolk personnel were supposed to know which pipeline facilities on its system were located\nwithin areas needing immediate response. Since the company’s own O&M Manual called for\nthe inclusion of such procedures, the fact that facility maps were included in an appendix to the\ncompany’s IMP is immaterial.\nSecond, the regulation requires that Norfolk assess its entire pipeline to identify the areas that\nrequire an immediate response and to delineate specific procedures for responding to\nemergencies in those riskier areas, regardless of the size of the system or the total length of the\npipeline. Instructing personnel to respond immediately to any failure does not demonstrate an\nattempt to comply with either the letter or the intent of the regulation, which is designed to\nrequire operators to prioritize the risks to its pipeline system. Therefore, I fail to see any\ncircumstances that would warrant mitigation or elimination of the penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$10,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(4).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(12), for failing to establish and maintain liaison with fire, police, and other\nappropriate public officials who may respond to a pipeline emergency. Respondent did not\ncontest the allegation of violation, but requested mitigation of the penalty because it had\nestablished and maintained liaison with local officials regarding risks on the railroad right-of-\nway and in the railroad yard, but not regarding emergencies from pipelines. This was a major\noversight on the part of Norfolk. When an operator fails to establish and maintain liaison with\nfire, police, and other appropriate public officials, the proper response procedures may not be\nclear to those responsible for responding to pipeline, as opposed to other types of, emergencies.\nI find that Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justify mitigation or elimination\nof the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(12).\n4 Response, at 2.\n\n\n\n7\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.403(a)(1-5), for failing to establish and conduct a continuing training program to instruct\nemergency response personnel on how to recognize and respond to emergencies on its pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation. The company acknowledged that it did\nnot have a training program to address pipeline emergencies, but contended that the penalty\nshould be eliminated because its personnel were trained to respond to emergencies in the\ncompany’s rail yard and to spills from tanks and locomotives.\nI find such an argument unconvincing. The regulation specifically requires pipeline operators to\ninstruct emergency response personnel on how to recognize and respond to pipeline\nemergencies. Norfolk presented no evidence or documentation demonstrating that its personnel\nhad been trained to respond to pipeline emergencies. The regulation’s objective is to ensure that\nan operator’s emergency response personnel are prepared to recognize conditions that are likely\nto cause emergencies; to know the characteristics and hazards of the product transported; to\nrespond to any accidental release of hazardous liquids; and to minimize the potential danger to\nthe public and environment if a failure or malfunction occurs. I find no evidence to support\nelimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,100 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(a)(1-5).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440, for failing to implement a written continuing public education program that followed\nthe guidance provided in API Recommended Practice 1162. Respondent did not contest the\nallegation of violation. When an operator fails to implement a continuous training program for\nemergency response personnel, the risk of harm increases to the company’s own personnel and\nto the public. Respondent has not presented any information that would warrant elimination or\nmitigation of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440.\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a)(2), for failing to identify when a close-interval survey or comparable technology\nwas practicable and necessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP\n0169. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Maintaining continuous and\neffective cathodic protection is a key part of pipeline safety. In order to assess the effectiveness\nof their cathodic protection systems, operators must select electrical survey methods that provide\nbase line operating data, locate areas of inadequate protection, and identify areas likely to be\nadversely affected by construction or stray currents. These measures enable operators to take\nappropriate remedial measures, such as clearing shorts, repairing inoperative cathodic protection\nequipment or adding supplemental cathodic protection to prevent corrosion. In this case,\nRespondent has not presented any information to warrant elimination or mitigation of the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a)(2).\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(a)(3), for failing to maintain current records for the maximum operating pressure of its\n\n\n\n8\npipeline system. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accurate and consistent\ndocuments are integral to conducting normal operations and maintenance, and responding to\nemergencies. In this case, Norfolk’s inconsistent records posed a potentially significant threat to\npipeline safety. Respondent has not presented any information that would warrant elimination or\nmitigation of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $17,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(a)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $126,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $126,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.402(c)(4), 195.402(c)(12), 195.403(a)(1-5), 195.440(a),\n195.573(a)(2) and 195.404(a)(3), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The\nDirector indicates that, effective July 1, 2011, Respondent turned over operation of the Macon\npipeline to Buckeye Development & Logistics, LLC (Buckeye).\nmaintains Norfolk’s pipeline, using Buckeye’s O&M procedures, OQ Plan and IMP. As the new\noperator, Buckeye is expected to comply fully with the regulatory requirements of this Order.\nThe Director has reviewed and accepted the corrective measures set forth in the proposed\ncompliance order in the Notice and indicates that no further action is required with respect to\nthose compliance terms.\n5 Buckeye now operates and\n5 The Development & Logistics segment of Buckeye consists primarily of terminal and pipeline operations and\nmaintenance services and related construction services for third parties. (http://www.buckeye.com )\n\n\n\n9\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3 and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 and specifically\nconsidered these to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nperiodically review the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness\nof procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and to take corrective\naction where deficiencies were found; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nrecords of its inspections for atmospheric corrosion of each portion of its pipeline.\nNorfolk presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited warning items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find,\npursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Notice\nItem 3) and 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Notice Item 7) have occurred and Respondent is hereby\nadvised to correct such conditions. If PHMSA finds a violation of these provisions in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29299}