{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220166003","title":"PLAINS MARKETING, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-08-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.208, 195.228(b), 195.266(a), 195.304, 195.404(a)(3), 195.410(a)(2)(i), 195.434, 195.507(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220166003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220166003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220166003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220166003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS MARKETING, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.208,  195.228(b),  195.266(a),  195.304,  195.404(a)(3),  195.410(a)(2)(i),  195.434,  195.507(b). The case was opened on 2016-08-12 and is reported as closed as of 2018-06-08. Proposed civil penalty: $47,500. Assessed civil penalty: $47,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220166003_Closure Letter_06082018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Closure%20Letter_06082018.pdf\n\n220166003_Closure Letter_06082018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Closure%20Letter_06082018_text.pdf\n\n220166003_Final Order_05102018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Final%20Order_05102018.pdf\n\n220166003_Final Order_05102018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Final%20Order_05102018_text.pdf\n\n220166003_NOPV PCP PCO_08122016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08122016.pdf\n\n220166003_NOPV PCP PCO_08122016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08122016_text.pdf\n\n220166003_Operator Response to Notice_11112016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11112016.pdf\n\n220166003_Closure Letter_06082018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 8, 2018\nMr. Dean Gore\nVice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance\nPlains Marketing, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nDear Mr. Gore:\nOn May 10, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Plains Marketing LP, a subsidiary of Plains All\nAmerican Pipeline, LP (“Plains”), a Final Order with a Civil Penalty and Compliance Order\n(CO). The CO required Plains to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the\nfederal pipeline safety regulations.\nPlains paid the Civil Penalty on May 25, 2018, and OPS Southern Region received multiple\ncommunications documenting Plains’ response to the CO.\nBased upon payment of the Civil Penalty and our review of documentation of the actions\ntaken by Plains, we have determined that Plains has complied with the terms of the CO and\nthe Final Order. This case is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2016-6003)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220166003_NOPV PCP PCO_08122016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 12, 2016\nMr. Dean Gore\nVice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance\nPlains Marketing, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nDear Mr. Gore:\nFrom August 31 to September 3, and September 21 to 23, 2015, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the Plains Marketing, L.P. (Plains) written procedures and\nrecords at Plains’ offices in Houston, Texas and York, South Carolina, and its liquefied\npetroleum gas pipeline facilities in South Carolina, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that Plains has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. § 195.208 Welding of supports and braces.\nSupports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a\npressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.\nPlains welded supports directly to pipe that operated at a pressure exceeding 100 p.s.i.\n(689 kPa) gage. During an on-site inspection of Plains’ Heath Spring facility, a PHMSA\nrepresentative observed and photographed supports welded directly to truck prover\n\n\n\nconnections that were designed to operate at pressures of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa)\ngage.\n2. § 195. 228 Welds and welding inspection: Standards of acceptability.\n(a) …\n(b) The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the standards in\nSection 9 of API 1104. However, if a girth weld is unacceptable under those\nstandards for a reason other than a crack, and if Appendix A to API 1104\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) applies to the weld, the acceptability of the\nweld may be determined under that appendix.\nPlains did not determine the acceptability of welds, in its Heath Springs facility,\naccording to the standards in Section 9 of API 1104.\nPlains’ construction records for the nondestructive testing (NDT) examination of the\nwelds in its Heath Springs facility referenced The American Society of Mechanical\nEngineers (ASME) Standard B31.3 as the standard used to determine the acceptability of\nthe welds, not Section 9 of API 1104 as required by the regulation. The weld\nacceptability standards in API 1104 differ from those in ASME Standard B31.3.\n3. § 195.266 Construction Records\nA complete record that shows the following must be maintained by the operator\ninvolved for the life of each pipeline facility:\n(a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively tested,\nincluding the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected weld.\nPlains did not maintain a complete record that showed the disposition of each rejected\nweld for the life of each pipeline facility.\nRadiography Examination Reports, from the construction of Plains’ Heath Springs\nfacility, indicated that weld W-61 on line segment D-C3-132 and weld W-266 on a\nmainline pump, 2-inch relief line at Tirzah Terminal had been rejected. However, The\nRadiography Examination Reports did not include sufficient detail to determine the\ndisposition of each rejected weld. Plains did not provide any additional documentation to\nshow the disposition of the rejected welds.\n4. § 195. 304 Test Pressure.\nThe test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart must be\nmaintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at least 4 continuous\nhours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating\npressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not visually inspected for leakage\nduring the test, for at least an additional 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to\n110 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure.\nPlains did not pressure test the piping at its Heath Springs facility for at least 4\ncontinuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating\npressure. A June 4, 2015 Pressure test record, for aboveground piping at the Heath\n2\n\n\n\nSprings facility, showed that the piping was pressure tested for 1 hour, not for a minimum\nof 4 hours as required by this section.\n5. §195.404 Maps and records\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline\nsystems that include at least the following information:\n(1) …\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\nPlains failed to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems that included\nthe maximum operating pressure (MOP) of each pipeline segment at its Tirzah Terminal.\nDuring the inspection, a PHMSA representative requested documentation showing the\nMOP of the pipeline segments at the Tirzah Terminal. Plains did not produce any maps\nor records showing the MOP of the pipelines segments at its Tirzah Terminal.\n6. § 195.410 Line Markers\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall\nplace and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in accordance with the\nfollowing:\n(1) …\n(2) The marker must state at least the following on a background of sharply\ncontrasting color:\n(i) The word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the words\n“Petroleum (or the name of the hazardous liquid transported) Pipeline,” or\n“Carbon Dioxide Pipeline,” all of which, except for markers in heavily developed\nurban areas, must be in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high with an\napproximate stroke of ¼-inch (6.4 millimeters).\nPlains did not place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline, on a\nbackground of sharply contrasting color, that stated the word “Warning,” “Caution,” or\n“Danger” followed by the words “Petroleum (or the name of the hazardous liquid\ntransported) Pipeline.”\nDuring the field inspection, a PHMSA representative identified and photographed several\nlocations with pipeline markers which appeared to be missing the word “Warning,”\n“Caution,” or “Danger.” Closer inspection of the pipeline markers revealed that the word\n“Warning” on the pipeline markers had faded, so as to be indistinguishable from the\nbackground color. Plains personnel stated that the wording was originally red. After the\ninspection, Plains contacted the region indicating that it had replaced the faded pipeline\nmarkers.\n7. § 195.434 Signs.\nEach operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each pumping\nstation and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name of the operator\nand a telephone number (including area code) where the operator can be reached at\nall times.\n3\n\n\n\nPlains did not maintain signs visible to the public around each pumping station.\nDuring the inspection of Plains’ Heath Springs facility, a pumping station, a PHMSA\nrepresentative observed a sign at the facility entrance that contained the name of the\noperator and a telephone number (including area code) where the operator could be\nreached at all times. While there were other signs around the perimeter of the pumping\nstation, the signs did not contain the name of the operator and a telephone number\n(including area code) where the operator could be reached at all times.\nPlains personnel acknowledged that there were not additional signs containing the name\nof the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the operator could be\nreached at all times posted around the perimeter of the station.\n8. § 195.507 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this\nsubpart.\n(a) …\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior\nqualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be\nretained for a period of five years.\nPlains did not demonstrate compliance with Subpart G by maintaining records supporting\nthat an individual was qualified when the individual performed covered tasks.\nPlains and Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission (DCGT) share a rectifier that provides\ncathodic protection current to two pipelines, one operated by Plains and one operated by\nDCGT. Plains’ rectifier inspection records showed that a DCGT employee performed\nrectifier inspections for Plains in 2013, 2014, and 2015. A PHMSA representative\nrequested OQ documentation showing that the DCGT employee was qualified to perform\nrectifier inspections, a covered task. Plains did not produce any records to demonstrate\nthat this employee was qualified to perform rectifier inspections in 2013, 2014, or 2015.\n9. 195.507 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this\nsubpart.\n(a) …\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior\nqualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be\nretained for a period of five years.\nPlains did not demonstrate compliance with Subpart G by maintaining records supporting\nthat an individual was qualified when the individual performed covered tasks.\nPlains’ Aerial patrolling records showed that Plains used Lenhart Aerial Patrol to perform\nweekly aerial patrols of its pipeline right-of-way. After reviewing aerial patrolling4\n\n\n\nrecords from January 2011, a PHMSA representative requested the operator qualification\nrecords for the aerial patrol pilot, an employee of Lenhart Aerial Patrol, to establish that\nhe was qualified to perform the covered task in January 2011. Plains did not produce any\nrecords to demonstrate that the Lenhart employee was qualified to perform the aerial\npatrols in January 2011. At the time of the inspection, the requested records were within\nthe five year record retention period required by this section.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation\ninvolved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily\nassessed a civil penalty of $47,500 as follows:\nItem Number PENALTY\n3 $20,200\n8 $27,300\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items 1, 6, 7, and 9 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement\naction or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct\nthese items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 2, 4, and 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains\nMarketing, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made\na part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\n5\n\n\n\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2016-6003 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n6\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue, to Plains Marketing, L.P. (Plains), a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, pertaining to Plains not determining the\nacceptability of welds, in its Heath Springs facility, according to the standards in\nSection 9 of API 1104, Plains must review welding records for its Heath Springs\nfacility to identify all welds for which the acceptability of the welds was not\ndetermined according to the standards in Section 9 of API 1104. For welds for\nwhich the acceptability of the welds was not determined in accordance with the\nstandards in Section 9 of API 1104, Plains must evaluate the acceptability of the\nweld according to the standards in Section 9 of API 1104.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice, pertaining to Plains not pressure testing\npiping at its Heath Springs facility for at least 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal\nto 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure, Plains must conduct a\npressure test, meeting the Subpart E requirements, of the piping at its Heath Springs\nfacility.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice, pertaining to Plains failure to maintain\ncurrent maps and records of its pipeline systems that included the maximum operating\npressure (MOP) of each pipeline segment at its Tirzah Terminal, Plains must\nreevaluate the MOP of each pipeline segment at its Tirzah Terminal, and update its\nmaps and records to accurately reflect the results of the MOP evaluation.\nPlains must complete the above items and prepare records to document the results\nwithin 90 days after the receipt of the Final Order.\nPlains must provide the Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, records demonstrating\ncompletion of the Compliance Order items, within 120 days after the receipt of the\nFinal Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Plains maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to the Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,\nSouthern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety.\nIt is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n7\n\n220166003_Final Order_05102018_text.pdf\n\nMr. Greg L. Armstrong, CEO\nPlains All American Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 2-2016-6003\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $47,400 and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Plains Marketing, LP, a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is effective upon the 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. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr., Vice President, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance,\nPlains Marketing, LP, 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77002\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\nPlains Marketing, LP,\na subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP\nRespondent.\n_______________________________________________\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 2-2016-6003\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 31 through September 3, 2015, and September 21 through September 23, 2015,\npursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of the written procedures and records of Plains Marketing, LP (Plains), in Houston,\nTexas and York, South Carolina, and its liquefied petroleum gas pipeline facilities in South\nCarolina. Plains is an operating subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, (PAA).1 PAA\nengages in the pipeline transportation of crude oil, refined products, natural gas, and natural gas\nliquids in the United States and Canada.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 12, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nPlains had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty\nof $47,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action,\nbut warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement\naction.\nPlains responded to the Notice by letter dated November 11, 2016 (Response). The company\ncontested some of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\n1 US SEC Form 10-K, Plains All American Pipeline, LP, available at\nhttp://www.edgarexplorer.com/EFX dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=H4jwq3gtDXw9Z-\n9&ID=11876486 (last accessed October 11, 2017).\n2 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do (last\naccessed October 11, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nPage 2\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Subsequently, on August 3, 2017,\nRespondent provided additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.228(b), which states:\n§ 195.228 Welds and welding inspection: Standards of acceptability.\n(a) …\n(b) The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the standards\nin section 9 of API 1104. However, if a girth weld is unacceptable under\nthose standards for a reason other than a crack, and if Appendix A to API\n1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) applies to the weld, the\nacceptability of the weld may be determined under that appendix.\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.228(b) by failing to determine the\nacceptability of welds at its Heath Springs facility, according to the standards in Section 9 of API\n1104. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains’ construction records for the nondestructive\ntesting examination of the welds in its Heath Springs facility referenced the American Society of\nMechanical Engineers standard B31.3 as the standard used to determine the acceptability of the\nwelds, not Section 9 of API 1104.\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. § 195.228(b) by failing to determine\nthe acceptability of welds at its Heath Springs facility, according to the standards in Section 9 of\nAPI 1104.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266(a), which states:\n§ 195.266 Construction records.\nA complete record that shows the following must be maintained by the\noperator involved for the life of each pipeline facility:\n(a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively\ntested, including the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected\nweld.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266(a) by failing to maintain a\ncomplete record that showed the disposition of each rejected girth weld for the life of each\n3 This was the version of § 195.228(b) in effect at the time of the inspection. Section 195.228(b) was amended on\nOctober 1, 2015, and currently reads, “The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the standards in\nsection 9 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). Appendix A of API Std 1104 may\nnot be used to accept cracks.”\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nPage 3\npipeline facility. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains’ Radiography Examination Reports\nfrom the construction of Plains’ Heath Springs facility failed to include sufficient detail to\ndetermine the disposition of rejected welds W-61 on line segment D-C3-132 and W-266 on a\nmainline pump, 2-inch relief line at Tirzah Terminal.\nIn its Response, Plains acknowledged that it did not have documentation of the disposition of\nrejected weld W-61 and noted that line segment D-C3-132 was completely replaced during a\nmaintenance project in 2016. However, Plains contested the allegation as it applied to weld\nW-266. Plains provided the Radiography Examination Report demonstrating that weld W-266\nwas replaced by weld W-303 on June 5, 2015. This record was not available during the\ninspection, but Plains argued that it demonstrates that Plains, as it relates to failed weld W-266,\nwas indeed in compliance with § 195.266(a) as of the date of the inspection.\nI agree. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.266(a) by failing to maintain a complete record that showed the disposition of weld\nW-61 on line segment D-C3-132, for the life of the pipeline facility. The allegation relating to\nfailed weld W-266 on a mainline pump, 2-inch relief line at Tirzah Terminal, is withdrawn.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.304, which states:\n§ 195.304 Test pressure.\nThe test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart\nmust be maintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at\nleast 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the\nmaximum operating pressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not\nvisually inspected for leakage during the test, for at least an additional 4\ncontinuous hours at a pressure equal to 110 percent, or more, of the\nmaximum operating pressure.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.304 by failing to pressure-test the\npiping at its Heath Springs facility for at least four continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125\npercent of the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Plains’ pressure-test records for above-ground piping at the Heath Springs facility\nshowed that the piping was pressure-tested for one hour, not the minimum four continuous hours\nrequired by § 195.304.\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. § 195.304 by failing to pressure-test\nthe piping at its Heath Springs facility for at least four continuous hours at a pressure equal to\n125 percent of the MOP.\nItem 5: 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 pipeline\nsystems that include at least the following information:\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nPage 4\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 maps and records of its pipeline systems that include the MOP of each pipeline at its\nTirzah Terminal. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains could not produce any maps or\nrecords showing the MOP of the pipeline segments at its Tirzah Terminal during the 2015\ninspection.\nIn its Response, Plains argued that it did not violate § 195.404(a)(3) and submitted three sets of\ndocuments, titled “Tirzah Terminal Facility Maximum Operating Pressure Determinations,”\n“Line Schedule,” and “Piping Bill Material.” Plains acknowledged that these records were not\nimmediately available during the 2015 inspection. The MOP determinations table, which had\nbeen undated, provided the MOP of each pipeline within the Tirzah Terminal pipeline system.\nThe Tirzah Terminal line schedule and piping bill material construction records included design\npressures and materials used during construction and were dated from 1978. Plains also noted\nthat it had begun “walking down” the piping at the facility and planned to update the MOP\ndeterminations table, as necessary, by December 31, 2016.\nSection 195.404(a)(3) requires an operator to “maintain current maps and records...of the\nmaximum operating pressure of each pipeline” (emphasis added). The MOP table and historical\nrecords provided by Plains in its Response fail to demonstrate that it maintained current maps\nand records of the MOP of each pipeline as of the date of the 2015 PHMSA inspection.\nSpecifically, the MOP determinations table is undated but does not have a time stamp; therefore,\nit is impossible to tell if the MOP determinations table was created before or after the inspection\nor whether it was current. The historical line schedule and construction records from 1978\nsupport the data provided in the MOP determinations table, but do not alone satisfy the\nrequirement of § 195.404(a)(3) because those records do not contain the MOP of each pipeline.\nIn its Response, Plains acknowledged that it was in the process of walking down the piping at the\nfacility and would be updating the MOP determinations table as necessary.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems that\nincluded the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of each pipeline at its Tirzah Terminal.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507(b), which states:\n§ 195.507 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) …\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of\nprior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered\ntask shall be retained for a period of five years.\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nPage 5\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507(b) by failing to maintain\nrecords supporting an individual’s current qualification to perform a covered task while that\nindividual is performing the covered task. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains could not\nprovide records supporting a certain individual’s qualifications who had performed rectifier\ninspections, which is a covered task. The individual was a Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission\n(DCGT) employee who performed rectifier inspections for a shared rectifier that provided\ncathodic protection to one pipeline operated by Plains and one pipeline operated by DCGT. The\nNotice alleged that Plains’ rectifier-inspection records showed that the DCGT employee\nperformed rectifier inspections for Plains in 2013, 2014, and 2015. However, the Notice alleged,\nPlains was unable to provide that individual’s qualification records.\nIn its Response, Plains noted that during the inspection, DCGT was reluctant to provide Plains\nwith the operator qualification (OQ) records for the DCGT employee. Plains also argued that the\nindividual did not perform a covered task and that the bulk of the rectifier data it received from\nthe DCGT employee was downloaded via a remote data-acquisition system rather than being\ndirectly read from the rectifier in the field. Plains argued that downloading rectifier data does\nnot constitute or equate to actual inspection of a rectifier. Therefore, Plains argued, the DCGT\nemployee who sent Plains the rectifier-inspection data was not performing a covered task\nbecause downloading the rectifier data was an administrative and ministerial task. Furthermore,\nPlains argued, no special training is required to perform the task of downloading rectifier data,\nand anyone with access to the remote system can download the data. Plains argued further that\ninspection of the rectifier would occur when a qualified individual reviewed the rectifier data.\nPlains noted that during the inspection, it provided the OQ records for the Plains employees who\nreviewed the rectifier data during the 2013-2015 period. In a subsequent filing, dated August 3,\n2017, Plains ultimately provided the OQ records for the DCGT employee at issue.4\nI disagree. Section 195.507(b) requires an operator to maintain records supporting an\nindividual’s current qualification to perform a covered task for as long as they are performing\nthat covered task. As defined under the four-part test in § 195.501(b), a “covered task” is an\nactivity identified by the operator that is performed on a pipeline facility, is an operations or\nmaintenance task, is performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and affects the operation\nor integrity of the pipeline. Plains does not dispute that it relied upon a DCGT employee to\ninspect the rectifier it shared with DCGT nor does it dispute that inspecting a rectifier is a\ncovered task.5 Rather, Plains argues that since the bulk of the rectifier data was downloaded\nremotely, the covered task of inspecting a rectifier did not occur until Plains reviewed the\nrectifier data.\nI am unpersuaded by Plains’ argument that the rectifier inspections at issue here were limited to\nreviewing the rectifier inspection data it received from DCGT. Section 195.573(c) requires an\n4 Response, at 4. Plains submitted the OQ records for the DCGT employee in a supplemental submission, dated\nAugust 3, 2017.\n5 Note: Part 195 does not require rectifier “inspections;” the term “inspection” is a colloquialism. Section\n195.573(c) requires rectifiers to be electrically checked for proper performance at least six times a year, but with\nintervals not exceeding two-and-a-half months.\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nPage 6\noperator to “electrically check for proper performance” each rectifier at least six times each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months. PHMSA has provided fair notice of\nhow it interprets this regulatory requirement where remote monitoring devices are used. In its\nEnforcement Guidance on Corrosion, it has noted that “remote monitoring devices which are\nused to read rectifiers, bonds, or test stations, must be periodically calibrated or checked for\naccuracy if the readings are used to meet compliance requirements and time frames.”6\nConsequently, inspection of a rectifier does not simply consist of obtaining and reviewing\nrectifier data sent remotely; it requires an operator to periodically check and calibrate the rectifier\nto ensure the accuracy of the data the remote monitoring device it is providing.\nIt is clear that Plains’ rectifier-inspection records from 2013-2015 show that the individual\nperforming the covered task of performing certain rectifier inspections for Plains was a DCGT\nemployee. The record demonstrates that Plains did not have the OQ records for this employee\nwhile the individual was performing the covered task. Thus, I find that Plains was not in\ncompliance with the requirement in § 195.507(b) from 2013-2015. While Plains eventually\nobtained such records, and submitted them to PHMSA in August 2017, the failure by Plains to\nobtain the records for an additional two years following the 2015 PHMSA inspection further\ndemonstrates Plains’ failure to maintain the records as specified in § 195.507(b) while the\nindividual was performing the covered task from 2013-2015.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.507(b) by failing to maintain records supporting an individual’s current qualification to\nperform rectifier inspections, a covered task.\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\nrelated series of violations.7\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation\n6 PHMSA Enforcement Guidance, Corrosion Part 195, available at\nhttps://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Corrosion Enforcement Guidance Part195 6 22 2016.\npdf (last accessed January 17, 2018)\n7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF 2-2016-6003\nPage 7\nwithout any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may\nrequire. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $47,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $ 20,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.266(a), for failing to maintain a complete record that showed the disposition of each\nrejected girth weld for the life of each pipeline facility. Plains argued that a penalty reduction\nwas warranted because the repair records were provided for weld W-266 and because weld W-61\nno longer exists since line segment D-C3-132 was replaced in 2016.\nWith respect to the nature and circumstances of the violation for failing to maintain a complete\nrecord showing the disposition of each rejected girth weld for the life of each pipeline facility,\nOPS alleged that the violation involved a failure to properly maintain a record and that had been\ndiscovered by PHMSA. With respect to gravity, OPS alleged that there were two instances of\nviolation but that the violation minimally affected pipeline safety or integrity. The two instances\nof violation were the two rejected welds for which the final disposition could not be determined\nfrom Respondent’s records. However, since the allegation regarding weld W-266 has been\nwithdrawn, I find that a reduction in the number of instances from two to one is appropriate.\nThis results in a marginal reduction of the penalty. Regarding weld W-61, however, I do not find\nits replacement in 2016 serves to further reduce the penalty because the line replacement only\ntook place after PHMSA had already conducted the inspection and identified the violation.\nRegarding culpability, OPS noted that Respondent took action to comply with the regulation but\nfailed to achieve compliance. Regarding history of prior offenses, the Violation Report notes\nthat Respondent had had more than six violations in the five years preceding the issuance of the\nNotice. With respect to good faith, OPS did not propose a credit.\nHaving reviewed the civil penalty assessment factors, I find the evidence supports assessment of\na reduced civil penalty. Accordingly, Respondent is assessed a reduced civil penalty of $20,100\nfor the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.266(a).\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.507(b), for failing to maintain records supporting an individual’s current\nqualification to perform a covered task, during the time period when the individual is performing\nthe covered task. As discussed above, I found that ","truncated":true,"body_characters":47782}