# PLAINS MARKETING, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

220166003_Closure Letter_06082018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Closure%20Letter_06082018.pdf

220166003_Closure Letter_06082018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Closure%20Letter_06082018_text.pdf

220166003_Final Order_05102018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Final%20Order_05102018.pdf

220166003_Final Order_05102018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Final%20Order_05102018_text.pdf

220166003_NOPV PCP PCO_08122016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08122016.pdf

220166003_NOPV PCP PCO_08122016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08122016_text.pdf

220166003_Operator Response to Notice_11112016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220166003/220166003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11112016.pdf

220166003_Closure Letter_06082018_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 8, 2018
Mr. Dean Gore
Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Plains Marketing, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 2-2016-6003
Dear Mr. Gore:
On May 10, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Plains Marketing LP, a subsidiary of Plains All
American Pipeline, LP (“Plains”), a Final Order with a Civil Penalty and Compliance Order
(CO). The CO required Plains to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the
federal pipeline safety regulations.
Plains paid the Civil Penalty on May 25, 2018, and OPS Southern Region received multiple
communications documenting Plains’ response to the CO.
Based upon payment of the Civil Penalty and our review of documentation of the actions
taken by Plains, we have determined that Plains has complied with the terms of the CO and
the Final Order. This case is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the
matters involved in this case.
Please be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2016-6003)
and not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.
Sincerely,
James A. Urisko
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region

220166003_NOPV PCP PCO_08122016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 12, 2016
Mr. Dean Gore
Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Plains Marketing, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 2-2016-6003
Dear Mr. Gore:
From August 31 to September 3, and September 21 to 23, 2015, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the Plains Marketing, L.P. (Plains) written procedures and
records at Plains’ offices in Houston, Texas and York, South Carolina, and its liquefied
petroleum gas pipeline facilities in South Carolina, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that Plains has committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violations are:
1. § 195.208 Welding of supports and braces.
Supports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a
pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.
Plains welded supports directly to pipe that operated at a pressure exceeding 100 p.s.i.
(689 kPa) gage. During an on-site inspection of Plains’ Heath Spring facility, a PHMSA
representative observed and photographed supports welded directly to truck prover



connections that were designed to operate at pressures of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa)
gage.
2. § 195. 228 Welds and welding inspection: Standards of acceptability.
(a) …
(b) The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the standards in
Section 9 of API 1104. However, if a girth weld is unacceptable under those
standards for a reason other than a crack, and if Appendix A to API 1104
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) applies to the weld, the acceptability of the
weld may be determined under that appendix.
Plains did not determine the acceptability of welds, in its Heath Springs facility,
according to the standards in Section 9 of API 1104.
Plains’ construction records for the nondestructive testing (NDT) examination of the
welds in its Heath Springs facility referenced The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Standard B31.3 as the standard used to determine the acceptability of
the welds, not Section 9 of API 1104 as required by the regulation. The weld
acceptability standards in API 1104 differ from those in ASME Standard B31.3.
3. § 195.266 Construction Records
A complete record that shows the following must be maintained by the operator
involved for the life of each pipeline facility:
(a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively tested,
including the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected weld.
Plains did not maintain a complete record that showed the disposition of each rejected
weld for the life of each pipeline facility.
Radiography Examination Reports, from the construction of Plains’ Heath Springs
facility, indicated that weld W-61 on line segment D-C3-132 and weld W-266 on a
mainline pump, 2-inch relief line at Tirzah Terminal had been rejected. However, The
Radiography Examination Reports did not include sufficient detail to determine the
disposition of each rejected weld. Plains did not provide any additional documentation to
show the disposition of the rejected welds.
4. § 195. 304 Test Pressure.
The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart must be
maintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at least 4 continuous
hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating
pressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not visually inspected for leakage
during the test, for at least an additional 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to
110 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure.
Plains did not pressure test the piping at its Heath Springs facility for at least 4
continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating
pressure. A June 4, 2015 Pressure test record, for aboveground piping at the Heath
2



Springs facility, showed that the piping was pressure tested for 1 hour, not for a minimum
of 4 hours as required by this section.
5. §195.404 Maps and records
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information:
(1) …
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
Plains failed to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems that included
the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of each pipeline segment at its Tirzah Terminal.
During the inspection, a PHMSA representative requested documentation showing the
MOP of the pipeline segments at the Tirzah Terminal. Plains did not produce any maps
or records showing the MOP of the pipelines segments at its Tirzah Terminal.
6. § 195.410 Line Markers
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall
place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in accordance with the
following:
(1) …
(2) The marker must state at least the following on a background of sharply
contrasting color:
(i) The word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the words
“Petroleum (or the name of the hazardous liquid transported) Pipeline,” or
“Carbon Dioxide Pipeline,” all of which, except for markers in heavily developed
urban areas, must be in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high with an
approximate stroke of ¼-inch (6.4 millimeters).
Plains did not place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline, on a
background of sharply contrasting color, that stated the word “Warning,” “Caution,” or
“Danger” followed by the words “Petroleum (or the name of the hazardous liquid
transported) Pipeline.”
During the field inspection, a PHMSA representative identified and photographed several
locations with pipeline markers which appeared to be missing the word “Warning,”
“Caution,” or “Danger.” Closer inspection of the pipeline markers revealed that the word
“Warning” on the pipeline markers had faded, so as to be indistinguishable from the
background color. Plains personnel stated that the wording was originally red. After the
inspection, Plains contacted the region indicating that it had replaced the faded pipeline
markers.
7. § 195.434 Signs.
Each operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each pumping
station and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name of the operator
and a telephone number (including area code) where the operator can be reached at
all times.
3



Plains did not maintain signs visible to the public around each pumping station.
During the inspection of Plains’ Heath Springs facility, a pumping station, a PHMSA
representative observed a sign at the facility entrance that contained the name of the
operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the operator could be
reached at all times. While there were other signs around the perimeter of the pumping
station, the signs did not contain the name of the operator and a telephone number
(including area code) where the operator could be reached at all times.
Plains personnel acknowledged that there were not additional signs containing the name
of the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the operator could be
reached at all times posted around the perimeter of the station.
8. § 195.507 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this
subpart.
(a) …
(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be
maintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior
qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be
retained for a period of five years.
Plains did not demonstrate compliance with Subpart G by maintaining records supporting
that an individual was qualified when the individual performed covered tasks.
Plains and Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission (DCGT) share a rectifier that provides
cathodic protection current to two pipelines, one operated by Plains and one operated by
DCGT. Plains’ rectifier inspection records showed that a DCGT employee performed
rectifier inspections for Plains in 2013, 2014, and 2015. A PHMSA representative
requested OQ documentation showing that the DCGT employee was qualified to perform
rectifier inspections, a covered task. Plains did not produce any records to demonstrate
that this employee was qualified to perform rectifier inspections in 2013, 2014, or 2015.
9. 195.507 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this
subpart.
(a) …
(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be
maintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior
qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be
retained for a period of five years.
Plains did not demonstrate compliance with Subpart G by maintaining records supporting
that an individual was qualified when the individual performed covered tasks.
Plains’ Aerial patrolling records showed that Plains used Lenhart Aerial Patrol to perform
weekly aerial patrols of its pipeline right-of-way. After reviewing aerial patrolling4



records from January 2011, a PHMSA representative requested the operator qualification
records for the aerial patrol pilot, an employee of Lenhart Aerial Patrol, to establish that
he was qualified to perform the covered task in January 2011. Plains did not produce any
records to demonstrate that the Lenhart employee was qualified to perform the aerial
patrols in January 2011. At the time of the inspection, the requested records were within
the five year record retention period required by this section.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a
related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum
penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to
exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.
The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation
involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily
assessed a civil penalty of $47,500 as follows:
Item Number PENALTY
3 $20,200
8 $27,300
Warning Items
With respect to items 1, 6, 7, and 9 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement
action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct
these items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 2, 4, and 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains
Marketing, 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). If you do not respond
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
5



allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to
find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2016-6003 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
James A. Urisko
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
6



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue, to Plains Marketing, L.P. (Plains), a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, pertaining to Plains not determining the
acceptability of welds, in its Heath Springs facility, according to the standards in
Section 9 of API 1104, Plains must review welding records for its Heath Springs
facility to identify all welds for which the acceptability of the welds was not
determined according to the standards in Section 9 of API 1104. For welds for
which the acceptability of the welds was not determined in accordance with the
standards in Section 9 of API 1104, Plains must evaluate the acceptability of the
weld according to the standards in Section 9 of API 1104.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice, pertaining to Plains not pressure testing
piping at its Heath Springs facility for at least 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal
to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure, Plains must conduct a
pressure test, meeting the Subpart E requirements, of the piping at its Heath Springs
facility.
In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice, pertaining to Plains failure to maintain
current maps and records of its pipeline systems that included the maximum operating
pressure (MOP) of each pipeline segment at its Tirzah Terminal, Plains must
reevaluate the MOP of each pipeline segment at its Tirzah Terminal, and update its
maps and records to accurately reflect the results of the MOP evaluation.
Plains must complete the above items and prepare records to document the results
within 90 days after the receipt of the Final Order.
Plains must provide the Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, records demonstrating
completion of the Compliance Order items, within 120 days after the receipt of the
Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that Plains maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to the Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety.
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.
7

220166003_Final Order_05102018_text.pdf

Mr. Greg L. Armstrong, CEO
Plains All American Pipeline, LP
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 2-2016-6003
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $47,400 and specifies actions that need to be taken
by Plains Marketing, LP, a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, 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, Southern 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. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr., Vice President, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance,
Plains Marketing, LP, 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas 77002
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
Plains Marketing, LP,
a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP
Respondent.
_______________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CPF No. 2-2016-6003
FINAL ORDER
From August 31 through September 3, 2015, and September 21 through September 23, 2015,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety
inspection of the written procedures and records of Plains Marketing, LP (Plains), in Houston,
Texas and York, South Carolina, and its liquefied petroleum gas pipeline facilities in South
Carolina. Plains is an operating subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, (PAA).1 PAA
engages in the pipeline transportation of crude oil, refined products, natural gas, and natural gas
liquids in the United States and Canada.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 12, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to
49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Plains had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty
of $47,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action,
but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement
action.
Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated November 11, 2016 (Response). The company
contested some of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
1 US SEC Form 10-K, Plains All American Pipeline, LP, available at
http://www.edgarexplorer.com/EFX dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=H4jwq3gtDXw9Z-
9&ID=11876486 (last accessed October 11, 2017).
2 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do (last
accessed October 11, 2017).



CPF 2-2016-6003
Page 2
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Subsequently, on August 3, 2017,
Respondent provided additional information in response to the Notice. 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:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.228(b), which states:
§ 195.228 Welds and welding inspection: Standards of acceptability.
(a) …
(b) The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the standards
in section 9 of API 1104. However, if a girth weld is unacceptable under
those standards for a reason other than a crack, and if Appendix A to API
1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) applies to the weld, the
acceptability of the weld may be determined under that appendix.
3
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.228(b) by failing to determine the
acceptability of welds at its Heath Springs facility, according to the standards in Section 9 of API
1104. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains’ construction records for the nondestructive
testing examination of the welds in its Heath Springs facility referenced the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers standard B31.3 as the standard used to determine the acceptability of the
welds, not Section 9 of API 1104.
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. § 195.228(b) by failing to determine
the acceptability of welds at its Heath Springs facility, according to the standards in Section 9 of
API 1104.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266(a), which states:
§ 195.266 Construction records.
A complete record that shows the following must be maintained by the
operator involved for the life of each pipeline facility:
(a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively
tested, including the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected
weld.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266(a) by failing to maintain a
complete record that showed the disposition of each rejected girth weld for the life of each
3 This was the version of § 195.228(b) in effect at the time of the inspection. Section 195.228(b) was amended on
October 1, 2015, and currently reads, “The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the standards in
section 9 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). Appendix A of API Std 1104 may
not be used to accept cracks.”



CPF 2-2016-6003
Page 3
pipeline facility. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains’ Radiography Examination Reports
from the construction of Plains’ Heath Springs facility failed to include sufficient detail to
determine the disposition of rejected welds W-61 on line segment D-C3-132 and W-266 on a
mainline pump, 2-inch relief line at Tirzah Terminal.
In its Response, Plains acknowledged that it did not have documentation of the disposition of
rejected weld W-61 and noted that line segment D-C3-132 was completely replaced during a
maintenance project in 2016. However, Plains contested the allegation as it applied to weld
W-266. Plains provided the Radiography Examination Report demonstrating that weld W-266
was replaced by weld W-303 on June 5, 2015. This record was not available during the
inspection, but Plains argued that it demonstrates that Plains, as it relates to failed weld W-266,
was indeed in compliance with § 195.266(a) as of the date of the inspection.
I agree. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.266(a) by failing to maintain a complete record that showed the disposition of weld
W-61 on line segment D-C3-132, for the life of the pipeline facility. The allegation relating to
failed weld W-266 on a mainline pump, 2-inch relief line at Tirzah Terminal, is withdrawn.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.304, which states:
§ 195.304 Test pressure.
The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart
must be maintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at
least 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the
maximum operating pressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not
visually inspected for leakage during the test, for at least an additional 4
continuous hours at a pressure equal to 110 percent, or more, of the
maximum operating pressure.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.304 by failing to pressure-test the
piping at its Heath Springs facility for at least four continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125
percent of the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Plains’ pressure-test records for above-ground piping at the Heath Springs facility
showed that the piping was pressure-tested for one hour, not the minimum four continuous hours
required by § 195.304.
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. § 195.304 by failing to pressure-test
the piping at its Heath Springs facility for at least four continuous hours at a pressure equal to
125 percent of the MOP.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information:



CPF 2-2016-6003
Page 4
(1) …
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain
current maps and records of its pipeline systems that include the MOP of each pipeline at its
Tirzah Terminal. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains could not produce any maps or
records showing the MOP of the pipeline segments at its Tirzah Terminal during the 2015
inspection.
In its Response, Plains argued that it did not violate § 195.404(a)(3) and submitted three sets of
documents, titled “Tirzah Terminal Facility Maximum Operating Pressure Determinations,”
“Line Schedule,” and “Piping Bill Material.” Plains acknowledged that these records were not
immediately available during the 2015 inspection. The MOP determinations table, which had
been undated, provided the MOP of each pipeline within the Tirzah Terminal pipeline system.
The Tirzah Terminal line schedule and piping bill material construction records included design
pressures and materials used during construction and were dated from 1978. Plains also noted
that it had begun “walking down” the piping at the facility and planned to update the MOP
determinations table, as necessary, by December 31, 2016.
Section 195.404(a)(3) requires an operator to “maintain current maps and records...of the
maximum operating pressure of each pipeline” (emphasis added). The MOP table and historical
records provided by Plains in its Response fail to demonstrate that it maintained current maps
and records of the MOP of each pipeline as of the date of the 2015 PHMSA inspection.
Specifically, the MOP determinations table is undated but does not have a time stamp; therefore,
it is impossible to tell if the MOP determinations table was created before or after the inspection
or whether it was current. The historical line schedule and construction records from 1978
support the data provided in the MOP determinations table, but do not alone satisfy the
requirement of § 195.404(a)(3) because those records do not contain the MOP of each pipeline.
In its Response, Plains acknowledged that it was in the process of walking down the piping at the
facility and would be updating the MOP determinations table as necessary.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems that
included the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of each pipeline at its Tirzah Terminal.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507(b), which states:
§ 195.507 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with
this subpart.
(a) …
(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be
maintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of
prior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered
task shall be retained for a period of five years.



CPF 2-2016-6003
Page 5
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507(b) by failing to maintain
records supporting an individual’s current qualification to perform a covered task while that
individual is performing the covered task. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains could not
provide records supporting a certain individual’s qualifications who had performed rectifier
inspections, which is a covered task. The individual was a Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission
(DCGT) employee who performed rectifier inspections for a shared rectifier that provided
cathodic protection to one pipeline operated by Plains and one pipeline operated by DCGT. The
Notice alleged that Plains’ rectifier-inspection records showed that the DCGT employee
performed rectifier inspections for Plains in 2013, 2014, and 2015. However, the Notice alleged,
Plains was unable to provide that individual’s qualification records.
In its Response, Plains noted that during the inspection, DCGT was reluctant to provide Plains
with the operator qualification (OQ) records for the DCGT employee. Plains also argued that the
individual did not perform a covered task and that the bulk of the rectifier data it received from
the DCGT employee was downloaded via a remote data-acquisition system rather than being
directly read from the rectifier in the field. Plains argued that downloading rectifier data does
not constitute or equate to actual inspection of a rectifier. Therefore, Plains argued, the DCGT
employee who sent Plains the rectifier-inspection data was not performing a covered task
because downloading the rectifier data was an administrative and ministerial task. Furthermore,
Plains argued, no special training is required to perform the task of downloading rectifier data,
and anyone with access to the remote system can download the data. Plains argued further that
inspection of the rectifier would occur when a qualified individual reviewed the rectifier data.
Plains noted that during the inspection, it provided the OQ records for the Plains employees who
reviewed the rectifier data during the 2013-2015 period. In a subsequent filing, dated August 3,
2017, Plains ultimately provided the OQ records for the DCGT employee at issue.4
I disagree. Section 195.507(b) requires an operator to maintain records supporting an
individual’s current qualification to perform a covered task for as long as they are performing
that covered task. As defined under the four-part test in § 195.501(b), a “covered task” is an
activity identified by the operator that is performed on a pipeline facility, is an operations or
maintenance task, is performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and affects the operation
or integrity of the pipeline. Plains does not dispute that it relied upon a DCGT employee to
inspect the rectifier it shared with DCGT nor does it dispute that inspecting a rectifier is a
covered task.5 Rather, Plains argues that since the bulk of the rectifier data was downloaded
remotely, the covered task of inspecting a rectifier did not occur until Plains reviewed the
rectifier data.
I am unpersuaded by Plains’ argument that the rectifier inspections at issue here were limited to
reviewing the rectifier inspection data it received from DCGT. Section 195.573(c) requires an
4 Response, at 4. Plains submitted the OQ records for the DCGT employee in a supplemental submission, dated
August 3, 2017.
5 Note: Part 195 does not require rectifier “inspections;” the term “inspection” is a colloquialism. Section
195.573(c) requires rectifiers to be electrically checked for proper performance at least six times a year, but with
intervals not exceeding two-and-a-half months.



CPF 2-2016-6003
Page 6
operator to “electrically check for proper performance” each rectifier at least six times each
calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months. PHMSA has provided fair notice of
how it interprets this regulatory requirement where remote monitoring devices are used. In its
Enforcement Guidance on Corrosion, it has noted that “remote monitoring devices which are
used to read rectifiers, bonds, or test stations, must be periodically calibrated or checked for
accuracy if the readings are used to meet compliance requirements and time frames.”6
Consequently, inspection of a rectifier does not simply consist of obtaining and reviewing
rectifier data sent remotely; it requires an operator to periodically check and calibrate the rectifier
to ensure the accuracy of the data the remote monitoring device it is providing.
It is clear that Plains’ rectifier-inspection records from 2013-2015 show that the individual
performing the covered task of performing certain rectifier inspections for Plains was a DCGT
employee. The record demonstrates that Plains did not have the OQ records for this employee
while the individual was performing the covered task. Thus, I find that Plains was not in
compliance with the requirement in § 195.507(b) from 2013-2015. While Plains eventually
obtained such records, and submitted them to PHMSA in August 2017, the failure by Plains to
obtain the records for an additional two years following the 2015 PHMSA inspection further
demonstrates Plains’ failure to maintain the records as specified in § 195.507(b) while the
individual was performing the covered task from 2013-2015.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.507(b) by failing to maintain records supporting an individual’s current qualification to
perform rectifier inspections, a covered task.
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
related series of violations.7
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline
safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation
6 PHMSA Enforcement Guidance, Corrosion Part 195, available at
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Corrosion Enforcement Guidance Part195 6 22 2016.
pdf (last accessed January 17, 2018)
7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF 2-2016-6003
Page 7
without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may
require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $47,500 for the violations cited above.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $ 20,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.266(a), for failing to maintain a complete record that showed the disposition of each
rejected girth weld for the life of each pipeline facility. Plains argued that a penalty reduction
was warranted because the repair records were provided for weld W-266 and because weld W-61
no longer exists since line segment D-C3-132 was replaced in 2016.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of the violation for failing to maintain a complete
record showing the disposition of each rejected girth weld for the life of each pipeline facility,
OPS alleged that the violation involved a failure to properly maintain a record and that had been
discovered by PHMSA. With respect to gravity, OPS alleged that there were two instances of
violation but that the violation minimally affected pipeline safety or integrity. The two instances
of violation were the two rejected welds for which the final disposition could not be determined
from Respondent’s records. However, since the allegation regarding weld W-266 has been
withdrawn, I find that a reduction in the number of instances from two to one is appropriate.
This results in a marginal reduction of the penalty. Regarding weld W-61, however, I do not find
its replacement in 2016 serves to further reduce the penalty because the line replacement only
took place after PHMSA had already conducted the inspection and identified the violation.
Regarding culpability, OPS noted that Respondent took action to comply with the regulation but
failed to achieve compliance. Regarding history of prior offenses, the Violation Report notes
that Respondent had had more than six violations in the five years preceding the issuance of the
Notice. With respect to good faith, OPS did not propose a credit.
Having reviewed the civil penalty assessment factors, I find the evidence supports assessment of
a reduced civil penalty. Accordingly, Respondent is assessed a reduced civil penalty of $20,100
for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.266(a).
Item 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,300 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.507(b), for failing to maintain records supporting an individual’s current
qualification to perform a covered task, during the time period when the individual is performing
the covered task. As discussed above, I found that 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 47782