{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220126017W","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-07-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.404(c)(3), 195.428(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126017w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126017w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126017w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220126017W","body":"Warning Letter involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(c)(3),  195.428(a). The case was opened on 2012-07-31 and is reported as closed as of 2012-07-31. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220126017W_warning letter_07312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126017W/220126017W_warning%20letter_07312012.pdf\n\n220126017W_warning letter_07312012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126017W/220126017W_warning%20letter_07312012_text.pdf\n\n220126017W_warning letter_07312012_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 31, 2012\nMr. T. Scott Collier\nVice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nFive Tek Park\n9999 Hamilton Blvd.\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 2-2012-6017W\nDear Mr. Collier:\nFrom March 26-28, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) inspected the Buckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye) Everglades Pipeline\nin Port Everglades, FL, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that Buckeye has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The items\ninspected and the probable violations are as follows:\n1. §195.404 Maps and records.\n… (c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:\n… (3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be\nmaintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed,\nwhichever is longer.\nBuckeye did not properly maintain records for the inspection of certain mainline valves.\nMainline valves with remote control capability must be inspected in accordance with\n§195.420(b) to assure, in part, that the valves will function properly when commanded to\nby Buckeye’s Control Center. Buckeye’s valve inspection records for calendar years 2010\nand 2011 for seven Everglades Pipeline mainline valves with remote control capability did\nnot convey whether or not the valves had been inspected for remote control functionality.\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, the Buckeye individual who performed some of the above\nreferenced mainline valve inspections stated to the PHMSA inspector that he does not\nrequest the control center to remotely operate mainline valves when the pipeline is\nflowing product. When asked further by the PHMSA inspector subsequent to the field\n\n\n\nvisit as to which of the 2010 and 2011 mainline valve inspections included testing for\nremote control functionality, Buckeye’s compliance person responded in an email that\n“\n…there is no way to determine whether the valve was operated from the control room or\nnot. It’s assumed that the procedures were followed for the inspections because nothing\nis noted in the comments contrary to that.”\nNotwithstanding the assumption by Buckeye’s compliance person that the valves were\nremotely operated by the control center during the above referenced valve inspections and,\ncoupled with the unclear wording of Buckeye’s applicable procedure (i.e. 195 O&M\nManual F-27 - Mainline Valves and Valve Sites)1\n, it was not clear to the PHMSA\ninspector from reviewing Buckeye’s valve inspection records that the valves were\ninspected for remote control functionality. Therefore, the records were ambiguous.\n2. § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the\ncase of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting\ndevice, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment\nto determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nBuckeye did not adequately inspect and test each pressure limiting device to determine\nthat it functioned properly in accordance with its written O&M procedures (i.e. Procedure\nF-33 Pressure Limiting and Control Devices), which specifically required the testing of\n“Sequence relays and controllers.”\nBuckeye did not completely inspect and test overpressure safety devices during the\ninspections listed below. The Buckeye technician who performed these inspections stated\nto the PHMSA inspector that he did not test the process logic controller (PLC) to assure\nthat it will send a digital output signal to shut down the pumps, as required to protect the\npumps and the 10-inch Port Everglades Pipeline from overpressure.\n− 08/31/2010 and 07/06/2011: PEPDS1 Port Everglades Unit 1 Case Pressure High\n09/03/2010 and 07/06/2011: PEPDS2 Port Everglades Unit 2 Case Pressure High\n− 08/31/2010 and 07/06/2011: PEPDS3 Port Everglades Unit 3 Case Pressure High\n− 08/11/2010 and 08/17/2011: PEPT3 Port Everglades Discharge Pressure\nUnder 49 United States Code, §60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct\n1 See Notice of Amendment (NOA) to Buckeye CPF 2-2012-6016M dated July 31, 2012.\n2\n\n\n\nthe items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Buckeye Partners, LP being\nsubject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2012-6017W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document\nwith the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":6578}