{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420095005","title":"PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-03-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.404(a), 195.404(c)(3), 195.406(a)(2), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.430, 195.436, 195.438, 195.505(a), 195.507(a), 195.573(c), 195.573(e), 195.579(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420095005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420095005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420095005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420095005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.404(a),  195.404(c)(3),  195.406(a)(2),  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.430,  195.436,  195.438,  195.505(a),  195.507(a),  195.573(c),  195.573(e),  195.579(b). The case was opened on 2009-03-04 and is reported as closed as of 2011-03-28. Proposed civil penalty: $92,700. Assessed civil penalty: $92,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420095005_ nopv pcp pco_03042009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_%20nopv%20pcp%20pco_03042009_text.pdf\n\n420095005_Closure Letter_03282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_Closure%20Letter_03282011.pdf\n\n420095005_Closure Letter_03282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_Closure%20Letter_03282011_text.pdf\n\n420095005_FinalOrder_04062010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_FinalOrder_04062010.pdf\n\n420095005_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf\n\n420095005_nopv pcp pco_03042009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_nopv%20pcp%20pco_03042009.pdf\n\n420095005_nopv pcp pco_03042009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_nopv%20pcp%20pco_03042009_text.pdf\n\n420095005_response to nopv pcp pco_05282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_response%20to%20nopv%20pcp%20pco_05282009.pdf\n\n420095005_nopv pcp pco_03042009_text.pdf\n\nIJ, S. Depanment\nof Transportation\nPipeline ond\nHozordous ttttoterlots sofety\nAdmlntstroti on\n8701 South Gessnsr, Suite 1tt0\nttoustoo, 7X 7707S\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 4, 2009\nMr. Dan Nerbonne\nVice President, Engineering\nPfains Pipeline, L. P.\nP. O. Box 4648\nHouston, Texas 77210-4648\nCPF 4-2009-5005\nDear Mr. Nerbonne:\nFrom February to July, 2008, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) and the California State Fire Marshal pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code inspected your records and pipeline facilities in the states of California,\nColorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississippi, and\nTexas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n()195. 402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nPlains procedures (Instructions for Form 505 — Tank Inspection) states that each tank\nmust be inspected monthly and documented on Form 505. A review of the Form 505\n\n\n\n2. identified that multiple individuals had multiple ways to fill out Form 505. During the\ninspection, multiple Plains employees were asked to perform the monthly tank\ninspection. Each individual was qualified to perform this OQ task. It was determined\nthat the procedure is not being followed.\nAlso during the inspection of Plains, it was identified that the Plains Form 509, Tank\nOverfill Protection Inspection, was improperly filled out for Tank 1200 on 05/05/08; the\ntank was out of service for an API 653 inspection as noted on the form but the\nacknowledgement of the alarm by the control center is noted for the tank.\nt)195. 404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems.\nThe Plains Pipeline, LP, Pipe Specification Sheet for the No. 3, 10\" Pipeline Lumberton\nto Eucutta shows that the pipeline has ANSI valves rated at 1440 psi, yet the MOP listed\nfor all but one section of the pipeline exceeds 1440 psi.\n()195. 404 Maps and records.\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be\nmaintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed,\nwhichever is longer.\nAs per f195. 432(b) the following items were identified during the inspection of Plains\nPipeline, L. P. :\nThe Monthly tank inspection records for tank 3800 at Gushing Terminal are not complete\nand properly filled out. The December 2006 and April 2007 records are dated and\nsigned but the items inspected and their condition are not checked.\nTank 4100 was placed in service on November 20, 2007, and according to the records\nat Cushing Terminal. There was no record available of the monthly inspection of the\ntank in December 2007 on the Plains tank inspection forms.\nPlains' does not have a record of the December 2007 inspection of Tank 1296 at Ten\nMile Station. Tank 1296 was placed in service and filled with oil on November 22, 2007.\nThe tank does not have a monthly tank inspection record. Plains' has a December 17,\n2007, emissions inspection performed by the Alabama Department of Environmental\nManagement.\nPlains tank inspection records for Eucutta Station Tanks 1205 and 1241 are not properly\ncompleted. During 2007 and 2008 records indicate that an individual conducted the tank\ninspections on February 1, 2007 and March 1, 2007 and another individual conducted\nthe inspections on April 1, 2008; on these dates Plains' work schedule shows they were\nnot working, rather they were working the day prior.\n\n\n\n$195. 406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no\noperator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following:\n(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.\nAt Eucutta Station, the MOP of the incoming No. 3 10\" Pipeline has an MOP of 1317\npsig, downstream of the receiving trap at Eucutta Station there are ANSI 150 valves in\nthe station piping. There is no overpressure protection provided to ensure that the\npressure in the station piping and valves do not exceed the maximum design pressure of\nthe valves.\n5195. 420 Valve maintenance.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 'h months, but at least twice\neach calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning\nproperly.\nAccording to documentation that was reviewed during the inspection, Valve M-17 and M-\n18 was not operated since April 2006, missing 5 inspection cycles. This office\nunderstands that the inspections of these valves were performed in May of 2008.\n$195. 428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the\ncase of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7\n'/a months, but at least twice each calendar ear, inspect and test each pressure\nlimiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control\nequipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical\ncondition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is used.\nDuring the inspection it was identified that ¹1 discharge piping Crane E. was inspected\n07/25/2007. The set point was found at 1100 psig and was left at 1100 psig. The MOP\nfor this system is 640 psig. Plains provided information on May 19, 2008, to indicate that\nthis was corrected.\n7. ()195. 430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump\nstation and breakout tank area. The equipment must be-\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;\n(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear; and\n(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.\nPlains' Fireflghting Equipment procedure addresses the inspection of fire extinguishers\nand annual foam system tests. Plains' does not address how the firefighting equipment\nis determined to be adequate. In discussions with Plains personnel they stated that a\n\n\n\nFire Plan is developed for each facility and that during pre-construction the Plains safety\ndepartment conducts a pre-construction fire requirement determination using a third\nparty and also works with local fire departments and state fire marshals to determine\nvarious things for the facility - foam dams on tanks, water lines, water point connections,\nadequate water supply, etc.\nThe Fire Plans were checked at several facilities:\nAt the Eucutta, Lumberton, Ten Mile, and Liberty Stations the Facility Response Plan\ncovers firefighting. Plains relies on the local fire departments to fight facility fires\nPlains has not documented the coordination done with local fire departments to\nensure that the local fire departments are aware of the extent of Plains facilities and\nensure the compatibility of equipment responders in regards to what assistance\nwould be required from the fire departments and coordination on.\nAt the Odessa Station there were no fire extinguishers at this station. The fire plan\nwas requested, but there was no fire plan available. During the week of May 19- 23,\n2008, the fire extinguishers were visible at the Odessa Station.\n8. t)195. 435 Security of facilities.\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and breakout\narea and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from vandalism and\nunauthorized entry.\nDuring the field evaluation of the Hendricks Tank Farm it was observed that it is not\nadequately protected from vandalism and unauthorized entry. At the Hendricks Tank\nFarm, livestock fencing is around the perimeter of the facility.\nAlso, it was noted during the field evaluation of the Jal Tank Farm the security fencing\nwas not around the facility. It appeared that there was construction equipment at the\nfacility and the PHMSA inspector was informed that this was temporary situation.\n9. I)195. 438 Smoking or open flames.\nEach operator shall prohibit smoking and open flames in each pump station area\nand each breakout tank area where there is a possibility of the leakage of a\nflammable hazardous liquid or of the presence of flammable vapors.\nAt the time of the inspection, Plains did not have signs posted to indicate that they\nprohibited smoking and open flames at the Wink Tank Farm.\n10. $195. 505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks.\nPlains' installed a Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor System (VpCI) under several breakout tanks\nat the Gushing Terminal Facility. The VpCI system is used to provide corrosion\nprotection to the tank bottoms. Plains has not identified the installation, inspection, and\n\n\n\nmaintenance of the VpCI as covered tasks. Protection of the tank bottom from corrosion\nis an O&M requirements of Part 195.\n11. $195. 507 Recordkeeping\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this\nsubpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individuals;\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\nPlains is required to have OQ qualification records for individuals performing covered\ntasks on the pipeline, the qualifications are to cover current work and work going back 5\nyears. Plains did not have OQ qualification records for several welders who performed\nwork on: Tank 7055 at Healdton Station on the Red River System; Tank 1182 at\nLumberton Mississippi; and Tank 553 in Liberty, Mississippi. Plains OQ Procedure\nSection 4 does not allow non-qualified personnel to perform covered tasks under\nsupervision for critical tasks such as welding.\n12. I)195. 573 What I must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(c ) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the second\ncolumn.\nDevice\nRectifier\n~Check f e\nAt least six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 /k months.\nReverse current switch.\nDiode.\nInterference bond whose\nfailure would jeopardize\nstructural protection.\nOther interference bond At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\nIt was identified during the inspection of the Goldsmith-Midland pipeline system that\nrectifier inspections exceeded the 2 \"/h month cycle for 2006 and 2007. In 2006, there\nwere 11 rectifiers that exceeded the 2 '/. month cycle and in 2007 there were 6 rectifiers\nthat exceed the 2 \"/k month cycle. Records were validated in 2008 and there were no\nrectifiers that exceed the 2 f/k month inspection cycle.\n13. $195. 573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion\ncontrol as required by $195. 401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline\nin an integrity management program under $195. 452, you must correct the\ndeficiency as required by $195. 452(h).\n\n\n\nPlains did not promptly take corrective action for low readings on tanks 800, 1800, 2100,\n2200, 2300, and 2500 at Gushing Terminal, prompt corrective action is defined at prior to\nthe next scheduled inspection — annually, not to exceed 15 months. For tanks with\nHDPE bottoms Plains procedure (Spec no. 718) states that \"Tanks with HDPE Liners,\nthe potentials should be taken with permanent reference electrodes and or access\ntubes, the potentials taken around the perimeter will give a false level of cathodic\nprotection. \" Tanks 800, 1800, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, and 2500 have HDPE liners.\n14. $195. 579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosiong\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion, you\nmust—\n(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7/* months.\nAt Pauls Valley Station, on the Red River system line, there are no records showing that\nthe coupon was read between August 2005 and September 2006. Plains' injects\ninhibitors in the Red River pipeline for corrosion control.\nPro osed Civil Penalt\nUnder 49 United States Code, g 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000\nfor any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $92, 700 as follows:\nItem number\n5\n11\n12\n13\n14\nPENALTY\n$22, 500\n$11, 300\n$16, 300\n$31, 300\n$11, 300\nWwi ~\nw Ite\nWith respect to items 2, 3, 6 and 9 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action\nor penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these\nitem(s). Be advised that failure to do so may result in Plains Pipeline, L. P. being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\nPro osed Com liance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10 pursuant to 49 United States Code g 60118, the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains\n\n\n\nPipeline, L. P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a\npart of this Notice.\nRes onse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. 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 information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2009-5005 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operatorsin Compliance Proceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code g 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains Pipeline, L. P.\n,\na Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains Pipeline,\nL. P. with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the improperly filling out\nthe paperwork:\na. Review procedures for the inspection of breakout tanks, including the\ninspection of tank overfill protection, and modify the procedures to assure that\nemployees understand what is required during the inspection of breakout\ntanks and how to fill out the appropriate inspection reports.\nb. Submit completed procedures and your plan to assure that the procedures\nare being followed and carried out by Plains employees.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of overpressure\nprotection at Eucutta Station for the ANSI 150 valves in the station piping\ndownstream of the receiving trap on the incoming No. 3 10\" Pipeline, Plains will:\nb. Provide appropriate pressure protection to the station piping downstream\nof the No. 3 10\" pipeline at Eucutta Station to protect the Maximum\nOperating Pressure of the station piping as determined by the pipe,\nvalves, and fittings per 195. 406\nReview the station piping at Eucutta Station to ensure that jurisdictional\npiping, valves, and fittings are properly protected per their Maximum\nOperating Pressure.\nIn regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of adequate fire\nfighting equipment and preplanned responses to tank and station fires at Eucutta,\nLiberty, Lumberton, Ten Mile and Odessa facilities, Plains will:\nUpdate its Facility Response Plans and Pre-Fire plans for Eucutta,\nLiberty, Lumberton, Ten Mile, and Odessa facilities on how tank and\nstation fires beyond incipient fires will be fought in coordination with the\nresponding fire departments.\nb. Conduct coordination meetings and establish fire plans for tank and\nstation fires with the fire departments that will respond to fires at Plains'\nEucutta, Liberty, Lumberton, Ten Mile and Odessa facilities.\n3. In regard to Item Number 8 of the Notice pertaining to secunty of facilities at the\nHendricks Tank Farm.\na. Review procedures for security of facilities and modify the procedures to\n\n\n\n4. assure that they address the security of facilities that they include the\nprotection from vandalism and unauthorized entry.\nb. Submit completed procedures and your plan to assure that the Hendricks\nTank Farm is protected from vandalism and unauthorized entry.\nIn regard to Item Number 10 of the Notice pertaining to the operator qualification\nprogram, and the Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor System (VpCI):\na. Review and update OQ procedures to assure that individuals that would\ninstall, inspect, and maintain the VpCI will be included in Plains procedures.\nb. Submit the revised procedures to assure that procedures include the\ninstallation, inspection, and maintenance of the VpCI.\nPlains shall complete the items above within 60 days after receipt of the Final\nOrder.\nPlains Pipeline, L. P. shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M.\nSeeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n\n420095005_Closure Letter_03282011_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 28, 2011\nMr. Troy E. Valenzuela\nVice President, Environmental Health and Safety\nPlains Pipeline\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2009-5005\nDear Mr. Valenzuela:\nOn April 6, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Plains Pipeline a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of\nthe documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has\nbeen determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect\nto the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n\n420095005_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf\n\nAPR 6 2010\nMr. Troy E. Valenzuela\nVice President—Environmental, Health and Safety\nPlains Pipeline, L.P.\n333 Clay St., Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2009-5005\nDear Mr. Valenzuela:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nassesses a civil penalty of $92,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Plains Pipeline,\nL.P., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. I acknowledge receipt of and accept your\nwire transfer, dated May 22, 2009, for $92,700 as payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in\nthe Final Order. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by\nthe Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 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. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5255]\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 Pipeline, L.P., ) CPF No. 4-2009-5005\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February to July 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and the\nCalifornia State Fire Marshal conducted an inspection of the records and pipeline facilities of\nPlains Pipeline, L.P. (Respondent or Plains), in approximately ten states located in the southern\nand western regions of the United States. Plains, a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline,\nL.P., operates approximately 3,500 miles of interstate crude oil and refined petroleum products\npipelines.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Plains,\nby letter dated March 4, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nalleged that Plains had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed a civil penalty\nof $92,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed to order Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time, Plains responded to the Notice by\nsubmitting a wire transfer on May 22, 2009, in the amount of the proposed civil penalty\n($92,700), thereby waiving further right to respond and authorizing entry of this Final Order.\nPlains submitted a subsequent letter dated May 28, 2009, in which the company contested certain\nother allegations and provided information about the company’s corrective actions.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by failing to have and follow written\nprocedures for filling out tank inspection Form 505. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\ndifferent individuals filled out the form in different ways. The Notice further alleged that on\nMay 5, 2008, Respondent improperly filled out tank overfill protection inspection Form 509 for\nTank 1200, as evidenced by a notation that the control center had acknowledged the high-level\nalarm even though the tank was out of service.\nIn regard to the first allegation, Respondent contended in its Response that the employees\nperforming tank inspections were all qualified and highly experienced, and that even if they\ndocumented their inspections on Form 505 in different ways, they always achieved their primary\nobjective of noting and documenting any unsatisfactory conditions. Respondent argued that\n“minor inconsistencies in how inspections [were] performed or documented” did not constitute\nviolations.\nwere not being followed.\n1 Furthermore, Respondent argued the Notice did not specify exactly how procedures\nAfter a review of the evidence in this case, which includes several completed forms as well as\nRespondent’s written procedures for filling out Form 505, it appears that the written procedures\nwere not followed in certain instances. For example, inspection dates were not always entered as\nrequired by Respondent’s procedures (instruction 9), and notations about inspection areas that\nhad an unsatisfactory condition were not regularly correlated with a description of the condition\n(instruction 12). In some instances, a description of corrective action and further evaluation was\nnot documented for each unsatisfactory condition (instruction 13).\nIn regard to the second allegation concerning Form 509, Respondent admitted that its employee\nnoted on the May 5, 2008 form that the control center had acknowledged a high-level alarm.\nPlains argued there was nothing improper about such an acknowledgment because a test of the\nhigh-level alarm can be performed regardless of the tank being out-of-service.\nAfter a review of the evidence, which consists of the Form 509 in question, I note that the form\ndoes not indicate whether the high-level alarm set points had been checked as part of the out-of-\nservice tank inspection. It is not clear how Respondent could have verified that the control\ncenter acknowledged a high-level alarm if the set points were not also checked. More\nimportantly, the allegation is that Respondent did not have and follow procedures for performing\ninspections of out-of-service tanks in this manner. Despite the allegation, Plains did not submit\nany evidence demonstrating the company had procedures that permitted or explained the testing\nof high-level alarms on out-of-service tanks. In fact, no procedures were submitted for\ninspecting out-of-service tanks at all, leading me to find that Respondent did not have and follow\nwritten procedures for the inspections as alleged in the Notice.\n1 Response at 1.\n\n\n\n3\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for documenting tank inspections on\nForm 505. I also find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to have and\nfollow procedures for performing inspections of out-of-service tanks.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(2), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal\noperations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds\nany of the following . . .\n(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.406(a)(2) by failing to provide overpressure\nprotection to prevent pressure in station piping and valves at Eucutta Station from exceeding\ntheir maximum design pressure. The Notice explained that the maximum operating pressure\n(MOP) of the incoming Number 3 pipeline (10-inch) at Eucutta Station exceeded the maximum\ndesign pressure of the valves; therefore, overpressure protection equipment was needed to\nprevent station piping and valves from exceeding their maximum design pressure. In its\nResponse, Plains did not contest the allegation and provided information concerning the\ncorrective action it had taken. Therefore, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(2) as alleged in the Notice.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ 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 § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect mainline valves\nM-17 and M-18 at least twice each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 7½ months,\nbetween April 2006 and May 2008. In its Response, Plains did not contest the allegation and\nexplained that the inspections were missed due to a misunderstanding between personnel in\nadjacent districts about who would conduct the inspections. Plains also provided information\nabout the corrective action it was taking. Therefore, after considering all of the evidence, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each mainline valve at the\nrequired intervals.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states:\n\n\n\n4\n§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be—\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;\n(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is\nclear; and\n(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate\nfirefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Respondent’s firefighting equipment procedures did not provide for determining\nwhether firefighting equipment was adequate, even though Plains personnel indicated that the\ncompany worked with local fire departments and state fire marshals to develop fire plans and\ndetermine which measures of firefighting equipment should be at each facility. In addition, the\nNotice alleged that at the Eucutta, Lumberton, Ten Mile, and Liberty stations, Plains relied on\nthe local fire departments to fight facility fires, but that the company had no documentation to\ndemonstrate that it had coordinated with local fire departments to ensure they were aware of\nRespondent’s facilities and had adequate capabilities to respond to the types of fire emergencies\nthat could arise. Furthermore, the Notice alleged that Plains did not have fire extinguishers or a\nfire plan at the Odessa Station. In its Response, Plains did not contest the allegations and\nprovided information concerning the corrective action it planned to take. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to\nmaintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436, which states:\n§ 195.436 Security of facilities.\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and\nbreakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.436 by failing to provide protection against\nvandalism and unauthorized entry at two tank farms. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\nHendricks Tank Farm only had livestock fencing around its perimeter. The Jal Tank Farm\nallegedly did not have security fencing entirely around the perimeter, but the Notice explained\nthat this condition may have been a temporary situation due to construction.\nIn its Response, Plains contested the allegation of violation with regard to the Hendricks Tank\nFarm and contended that added security was not required because it was a very low security risk\nfacility. Plains also stated that the Hendricks and Jal stations are not critical pipeline facilities\nunder the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) vulnerability assessment requirements.\nRespondent acknowledged that a section of fencing around the Jal Tank Farm had been removed\ndue to construction activities, but the perimeter fencing around the station had been restored.\nSection 195.436 requires pipeline operators to provide protection from vandalism and\nunauthorized entry for “each pumping station and breakout tank area and other exposed facility.”\nThe regulations do not exempt from this requirement facilities located in rural areas, those that\n\n\n\n5\nhave not experienced vandalism in the past, or facilities that are not “critical” under DHS\nregulations.\nTherefore, Respondent is required to provide protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry\nfor both the Hendricks and Jal stations. The evidence demonstrates Respondent had not\nprovided such protection to either station at the time of the OPS inspection. Livestock fencing\nkeeps livestock out, but does not protect from vandalism and unauthorized entry. Security\nfencing that does not extend entirely around the perimeter is also vulnerable to unauthorized\nentry and vandalism.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.436 by failing to provide protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry at the two tank\nfarms.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written\nqualification program that included the identification of all covered tasks.\nNotice alleged that Plains had not identified the covered tasks of installing, inspecting, and\nmaintaining its Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor (VpCI) system, which the company installed under\nbreakout tanks at the Cushing Terminal Facility to protect the tank bottoms against corrosion.\nThe Notice alleged that protection of the tank bottom from corrosion is an operations and\nmaintenance requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, making the installation, inspection, and\nmaintenance of the VpCI system covered tasks.\n2 Specifically, the\nIn its Response, Plains contested the allegation of violation and explained that the company did\nnot have a qualification program for the VpCI system because it was a proprietary system that a\nvendor had installed and tested. Plains indicated that since the system was proprietary, the\ncompany did not have subject-matter expertise to develop a qualification program for personnel\nto act as qualification evaluators. Respondent also explained that the vendor’s personnel who\ninstalled the system had NACE certifications, as well as “qualifications on various CP covered\nsystem as a covered task and its personnel could be qualified to perform that task based on\ntasks.”3 Plains indicated that it had now identified the maintenance and monitoring of the VpCI\ntraining by the system vendor and a written exam developed by Plains.\n2 A “covered task” is an activity, identified by the operator, that: (1) is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) is an\noperations or maintenance task; (3) is performed as a requirement of this part; and (4) affects the operation or\nintegrity of the pipeline. § 195.501(b).\n3 Response at 5. NACE International is a professional organization that offers training and certifications in\ncorrosion control.\n\n\n\n6\nPHMSA recognizes there will be instances in which a pipeline operator may contract for the\nperformance of specialized services for which company personnel do not have subject-matter\nexpertise. In such situations however, § 195.505 still requires the pipeline operator to identify\nthe covered tasks that will be performed and to ensure that persons performing such tasks are\ncapable of performing the task and able to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions\n(AOCs). For purposes of these requirements, there is no difference between tasks performed by\nthird-party contractors or pipeline employees—all covered tasks performed on the pipeline must\nbe identified and all persons qualified.4\nPlains had not identified the installation, inspection, and maintenance of the VpCI system as a\ncovered task prior to the task being performed. There is also no evidence that Plains worked\nwith the contractor, despite the system’s proprietary designation, to ensure that the vendor’s\npersonnel were qualified and could recognize and react to potential AOCs that might arise on the\nPlains pipeline system.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program that included the\nidentification of covered tasks associated with the VpCI system.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507, which states:\n§ 195.507 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to\nperform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records\nof prior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing\ncovered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.507 by failing to maintain qualification\nrecords for several welders who performe","truncated":true,"body_characters":72695}