{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320085004","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-04-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b), 195.404(c), 195.420(b), 195.428(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320085004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320085004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320085004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320085004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b),  195.404(c),  195.420(b),  195.428(a). The case was opened on 2008-04-02 and is reported as closed as of 2011-03-30. Proposed civil penalty: $73,000. Assessed civil penalty: $36,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320085004_Final Order_03102011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320085004/320085004_Final%20Order_03102011.pdf\n\n320085004_Final Order_03102011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320085004/320085004_Final%20Order_03102011_text.pdf\n\n320085004_NOPV PCP-PCO_04022008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320085004/320085004_NOPV%20PCP-PCO_04022008.pdf\n\n320085004_nopv pcp-pco_04022008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320085004/320085004_nopv%20pcp-pco_04022008_text.pdf\n\n320085004_Operator Response_05062008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320085004/320085004_Operator%20Response_05062008.pdf\n\n320085004_Final Order_03102011_text.pdf\n\nMAR 10 2011\nMr. Jerry J. Ashcroft\nVice President, Field Operations\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\n5 TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Blvd.\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nRe: CPF No. 3-2008-5004\nDear Mr. Ashcroft:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of\nthe allegations of violation, makes findings of violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $36,700.\nIt further finds that Buckeye Partners, L.P. has completed the actions specified in the Notice to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 3559]\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 )\nBuckeye Partners, L.P., ) CPF No. 3-2008-5004\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 24-26, May 1-3, May 29-30, June 1, June 12-13, and June 26-28, 2007, pursuant to 49\nU.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nthe facilities and records of Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye or Respondent), in Kansas,\nMissouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Buckeye operates approximately 5,400\nmiles of pipelines transporting refined petroleum products and natural gas liquids.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 2, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Buckeye had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b), 195.420(b), 195.428(a),\nand 195.404(c) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $73,000 for the alleged violations. The\nNotice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged\nviolations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated May 6, 2008 (Response). The company\ncontested two of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the allegations,\nprovided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken, and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), which states:\n1 Buckeye, L.P. website, www.buckeye.com, accessed July 28, 2010.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.401 General requirements.\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a\nreasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it\npresents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not\noperate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe\ncondition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to correct a\ncondition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system within a reasonable\ntime. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, large pieces of\nconcrete debris were lying directly above a portion of buried pipeline at Mile Post 268.8, and that\nthis debris could have adversely affected the safety of the pipeline.\nIn its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegation of violation and acknowledged the\npresence of the concrete in the pipeline right-of-way as described in the Notice. Buckeye stated\nthat it removed the debris immediately after PHMSA’s inspectors discovered it. Buckeye stated\nthat it did not believe that the debris had been in the pipeline right-of-way for a long period of\ntime and stated that it had no reason to believe that the debris had damaged the pipeline.\nPipeline operators are responsible for inspecting the surface conditions on their pipeline rights-\nof-way on a bi-weekly basis to identify conditions like the dumping of debris above the pipeline.\nPHMSA’s inspector observed that the concrete debris was located among high brush and weeds\nthat appeared to have been growing undisturbed for a period of many months indicating that the\ndebris was present for a significant length of time. Given the substantial weight of the concrete,\nthe fact that the pipeline is buried between three and four feet deep does not demonstrate that the\ndebris was not “a condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system.”\nBuckeye’s prompt removal of the concrete debris after the inspection does not negate its failure\nto identify and remove the debris within a reasonable time.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to identify and remove the concrete debris to correct a condition\nthat could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system within a reasonable time.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect 17\nspecified mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar\nyear during 2005 and 2006 . These valves were located on Buckeye’s Wood River to Chicago to\nNorth Line and Wood River to Lima East Line.\n\n\n\n3\nIn its Response, Buckeye explained that the required inspections of 11 of the 17 valves had\nactually been carried out in 2005 and 2006 and records of these inspections had been maintained,\nbut were not reviewed by PHMSA’s inspector at the time of the inspection because it had\nclassified these valves under its scraper trap inspection program. Buckeye provided\ndocumentation demonstrating that these 11 valves had been inspected as required. Based on this\ndocumentation, I find that Buckeye was in compliance with respect to these 11 valves.\nWith respect to the remaining six valves, Buckeye acknowledged that they were not inspected in\n2005. The company stated that these valves were part of assets that it acquired in 2004, and that\nthe previous owner’s records did not list the valves. Buckeye stated that as a result, it initially\ndid not include them on its inspection list. Buckeye stated that it discovered this mistake during\nan audit that it carried out prior to PHMSA’s inspection and that it promptly added the valves to\nits inspection list in 2006. Notwithstanding that the former owner gave Buckeye incomplete\ninformation, Buckeye was responsible for carrying out all required inspections of its facilities,\nincluding these six valves.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Buckeye violated § 195.420(b) as\nto the six valves that it did not inspect in 2005.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear . . . inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve,\npressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,\nand is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\ncertain pressure control equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye did not perform documented\ninspections of seven specified overpressure protection and pressure control devices for the Wood\nRiver, Illinois to Lima, Ohio East Line system in 2006.\nIn its Response, Buckeye provided documentation demonstrating that two of the devices had\nbeen removed from service prior to the time the inspections would have been due and therefore\nwere not required to be inspected. With respect to the other five devices, Buckeye provided\ncopies of its Form 741 “Safety Device Inspection, Calibration, and Replacement” records\nshowing that it had actually carried out the inspections in 2006 as required.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Buckeye did not violate\n§ 195.428(a). Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the allegation of violation in Item 3\nof the Notice be withdrawn.\n\n\n\n4\nIt should be noted, however, that under § 195.404(c)(3), operators are required to “maintain”\ninspection records for at least two years. The requirement to maintain records means that they\nmust be readily available to personnel and inspectors. In this case, Buckeye did not comply with\nthe requirement to maintain the records because it was unable to produce them during the\ninspection visit. If § 195.404(c)(3) had been cited in the Notice, Buckeye would likely have\nbeen found in violation of this requirement for the five devices that remained in service despite\nlater locating the records.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods\nspecified:\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall\nbe maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c) by failing to maintain\ncertain inspection records required by Subpart F of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 for at least two years.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye could not produce the 2005 annual tank inspection\nreport for the L-12 tank at the Lima South terminal. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. 195.404(c) by failing to maintain required records of the 2005 annual tank inspection for\nthe L-12 tank for at least two years.\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$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\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\n\n\n\n5\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b) for failing to conduct required inspections of 17 mainline valves. As discussed\nabove, I found that Buckeye violated § 195.420(b) as to six valves, but that it did not violate\n§ 195.420(b) as to the other 11 valves cited in the Notice. Accordingly, no penalty will be\nassessed as to those 11 valves.\nIn its Response, Buckeye argued that it should not be subject to a civil penalty for its failure to\ninspect the six valves referenced above in 2005. Buckeye acknowledged that it failed to inspect\nthese valves, but it stated that this oversight was attributable to the previous owner of the\npipeline. Buckeye explained that the valves were part of assets that it acquired in late 2004, and\nthat the valves were not on the previous owner’s mainline valve inspection list. Because the\nprevious owner did not list the valves, Buckeye did not include them on its inspection list and did\nnot inspect them. Buckeye stated that it discovered this mistake during an audit that it carried\nout prior to the time of PHMSA’s inspection, and that it then added the valves to its inspection\nlist in 2006.\nOperators that newly acquire pipeline systems are responsible for ensuring that such systems are\nmaintained in full compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. Accordingly, successor\noperators are responsible for obtaining records from previous owners to demonstrate ongoing\ncompliance with periodic inspection and maintenance requirements. To ensure full compliance,\noperators may need to fully audit new assets and immediately carry out required inspections. In\nthis case, Buckeye did not perform a complete audit of its new assets until after the valve\ninspections should have been performed. Buckeye took ownership of the new assets in late\n2004, and the required inspections should have been performed in April 2005. This presented\nBuckeye with adequate time to audit its system to ensure its full compliance with the regulations.\nMoreover, Buckeye did not act to immediately inspect the valves; instead, it added the valves to\nthe list for the next inspection round. Valve inspection, however, is integral to pipeline safety.\nValve malfunction can lead to an inability to shut-in a line section during a spill incident, and\ninspections are the key means by which operators identify valve problems before accidents\noccur. Buckeye’s failure to inspect the valves had the potential to compromise the safety of its\npipeline system.\nWith respect to the penalty for this Item, the $35,000 amount proposed in the Notice was based\non an alleged failure to inspect 17 valves. As discussed above, I found that Buckeye failed to\ninspect six out of the 17 valves cited in the Notice. Having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, including the reduced gravity of the alleged violation, I assess\nRespondent a reduced civil penalty of $27,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a) for failing to perform required inspections of certain pressure control devices. As\ndiscussed above, I ordered that Item 3 be withdrawn because Buckeye submitted documentation\nshowing that it had carried out the inspections at issue. Accordingly, I also withdraw the\nproposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\n\n\n\n6\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $9,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(c) for failing to maintain records of a required inspection of a breakout tank. Buckeye\nneither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in\nthe proposed penalty. Maintaining inspection records is an important part of pipeline safety.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $9,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c).\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 $36,700.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Final Order.\nPayment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number\nfor this case), made payable to “U.S. Department of Transportation,” to the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-\n341), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n§ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions\nare contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $36,700 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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 Item 1 in the Notice for a violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.401(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director\nindicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance\norder:\nWith respect to the alleged violation of § 195.401(b) (Item 1), Respondent\nremoved the debris from its pipeline right-of-way and found no indication that the\ndebris had damaged the pipeline.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\n\n\n\n7\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate\nAdministrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,\n2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at\nthe same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of\nservice of the Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the\nissue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other\nprovisions of the Final Order, including any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits\npayment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived.\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\n\n320085004_nopv pcp-pco_04022008_text.pdf\n\nU5. DePattmoftt\nOf TrottsparkNon\nH NatNQgls SahNy\nA4tmlnistrcltion\n901 Locust Sheet, Suae 462\nKsnsss Gity, MO 64106. 2641\nNOTICE OF FRQSASLK VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSKD COMPLIANCE OWNER\nMr. Brian Jury\nVie Presidertt, Field Operations\nBuckeye Partners, I. , P.\n5 TBK Part\n9999 84trnilton Blvd\nBreinigsvige, PA 18031\nDear Mr. Jury:\nOn April 24-26, May 1-3, May 29-30, June 1, June 12-13 and June 26-28, 2007,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your pipeline facilities in IQtnstm,\nMissouri, Hlinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and your records in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania.\nA8 a result of the inspection, it appears that you have cotnmitted probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Relations, Title 49, Code of Federal ~ations. The items wspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. $195. 491'General Requirements\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that conM adv~ affect the\nsafe operation of its pipegne system, it shag correct it within a reastnlaMe time.\nHowever, if the cae~ ht of such a natnre that it presents an immediate hazard to\n\n\n\np~e Qr property, the operator Nay not operate the affected part of the system\nOn@ it kgs co+Abated the 4+hsgfs condition,\nA condition, that could adverse afFect the safe operation of the pipeline was found at mile\npost 268. 8 of the Wood River to Lima East Line during the field inspection. Large pieces of\nconcrete debris were observed to have been dumped directly over the pipeline by the side of\nthe road. The weight of the debris may have impacted the integrity of the pipeline. The\nco'ndition has existed for an unknown amount of time.\n2. $195AA Valve ~~ce,\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7Y months, Set at least twice each\ncalendar year, inspect each mainline valve to deterInfne that it is fancti~\nproperly,\nBuckeye did not inspect several mainline valves twice each year during 2005 and 2006 for\nBuckeye's Wood River to Chicago Northline and Wood River to Lima East Line. A review of\nthe herds obtained 6om your Maximo record keeping database found that the following\nmajinline valves were missing the required inspections:\n%0165EFVOD\nPN160AGV2'78\nMLV\n14\" valve in\nvault\n(20-1)\nPN160AGV35A\n(20-3) MLV\nPN160AGV358 Receiving\nBarrel 8 ass\n(30-1)\nPN160AGV35D\nMLV\nTerminal\nBlock Valve\n(31-1)\nPNNQAGV35E\nMLV\nSearch and\nLeg Switch\nValve\n(BV318)\nPw 1 60XXV216A\n(SCR3)\nSI1608PV155A\nMLV\nMP 216. 03\nMLV\nLauncher\n0utlet Valve\n2 2005, and both 2006\n2 2005 ami\nboth 2006\n1 2005\n1' 2005\n2 2005 and both 2006\n\n\n\n2 2005 and both 2006\n(BV22}\nSI160BPV1550\n(25-2)\nA6160DNV35A\n1 2005\n(25-3)\nA6160DNV35C\n(20-1)\nA6160DNV63A\n(20-3)\nA6160DNV638\n(8CR3)\nA6160HUV78A\n(10A}\nA6160HUV788\n(BV11)\nA6160HUV780\nMLV\nLauncher\nBarrel Outlet\nMLV\nLauncher\nBarrel 8 ass\nMLV\nReceiving\nBarrel Inlet\nMLV\nReceiving\nBarrel B 88s\nMLV\nLauncher\nOutlet\nMLV\nL/S Valve\nMLV\nMP 77. 56\n2 2005 and both 2006\n2 2005 and both 2006\n2 2005 and both 2006\n2 2005 and both 2006\n1 2005\n3, ' $19$AJS Overpressgre safety devices and overM protectiom systems.\n{a) Except as provided im paragraph {b) of this section, each operator shaH, at\nvals set ssres~g lS months, but at least oace each calendar year, or ie the case\nof pipe%'mes useck to carry ~ly volatme Hqeids, at ljstervals sot to exceed 7k' moaths,\nbet «t least twice each calendar year, mspect and test each press@re lfimithsg de4ce,\nrelief valve, pressure reyagtor, or other item of pressure control eqeipmeet to\ndetermme that it is fege5ossing properly, is lie good mechauical co~a, «nd is\nadeqeate from the standpoint of capacity aad remability of operatioe for the service\nin which lt is eayL\nBuck~ 41 not perfoon @In' inspections on several overpressure protection and pressure\noontrol devices for the Wood River, IL to Lima, OH Bast Line system. A review of the\nrecords obtained Amn your Maximo record keeping dab4ase found that the fo11owinN devices\nwere missing the required inspections:\n\n\n\nII ~ iis\nIII is\nIS\nII:« I '« I\n'\n~ « I I i \" I i I I ' ( I ii. ' \"-I «\n'\n~ I Ii . .\n' i I « I i I Ii '\ni\n' S« 'i «««I I 'i I\ni I\n~\n«\na .\n' '. ll ' I t ~ ia t ~ I ' I ~i, I \"I. : I I II I t'III t ~\n«I«t I t I «I s: I ' I\" I III t I «-\n. WI 'I\nI I'I« III 'I i« \"I\n' I I\n''-III 0 'I ill ' '\n~ I ' t I li, I«. II II\n~ ll '. ' « I\nI ~ I, I 'I\" I ~ I t'I ~ i I ~ I ' I\nI « I I t ~ ~ ts I I II I I\ngs:\nI I t I «I st I I\nil sst«41' ll\nIII I «si«s\nI ' I I i I ~ IH\nt I 'Ill I- I II\nIs 'I ' tl I I\nS I\"\n'\n~\nst t «« ~\nIs I, III III\nII ' I II: ~ 'I ~ I ~\nett j . II I~+\n\n\n\n%ith r~ to item number l g@msset to 49 United States Code $ 50118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Admimstration proposes to issue a Conqdiance Order to Buckeye\nPartners, L. P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order that is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Rerponse Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Coephance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. Be advised that all material you submit in re@case to this enforcetnent action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. 1f you believe that any portion of your responsive\nmaterial quaMes for con65enti@l treatment under 5 U. S, C, 552(b), along with the complete\noriginal document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nMieve qusBfy for cordidential treatment red~ and an explanation of why you beheve the\nredacted information quali6es for con6dential tlm@ment under 5 U. S. C, 552{b). If you do not\nrespond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator &r Pipeline\nSafety to 5mi acts as aHeged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final\nOrder.\nQ your corraspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-X%8-%04 and for hach\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electmnic format whenever possible.\nkh'\n,\nIvan A, Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and H~ous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nPespeese GpP'tionsfor Pipeline Operators ie Compliance Proceedings\n\n\n\nPRGPQSK9 COMPLIANCE ORBKR\nPqrsuant to 49 United States Code f 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nA4ninistration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, LP. a Compliance Grder\ninporpora5ng the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye\nPartners, L. P. with the pipeline safety regulations:\nl. Ln'r~ to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to possible pipeline\nIIIe, Buckeye Partners, LP, shall clear the rightmf-way of debris and verify\nthat the pipeline has not been damaged.\n2. Wckeye Partners, L. P. shall within 90 da of receipt of a Final Order,\ncomplete Item Number 1 of this Compliance Order,\n3, Buckeye Partners, LP. shall maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fu16Hing this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Ivan A. Huntoon, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials 8afety Administration. Costs shaH be ~ed in two categories: l)\ntotal cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, ~qns and other\nchanges to pipeluM', in&astructure.","truncated":false,"body_characters":28309}