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

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

Official case documents:

420095005_ nopv pcp pco_03042009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_%20nopv%20pcp%20pco_03042009_text.pdf

420095005_Closure Letter_03282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_Closure%20Letter_03282011.pdf

420095005_Closure Letter_03282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_Closure%20Letter_03282011_text.pdf

420095005_FinalOrder_04062010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_FinalOrder_04062010.pdf

420095005_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf

420095005_nopv pcp pco_03042009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_nopv%20pcp%20pco_03042009.pdf

420095005_nopv pcp pco_03042009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_nopv%20pcp%20pco_03042009_text.pdf

420095005_response to nopv pcp pco_05282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420095005/420095005_response%20to%20nopv%20pcp%20pco_05282009.pdf

420095005_nopv pcp pco_03042009_text.pdf

IJ, S. Depanment
of Transportation
Pipeline ond
Hozordous ttttoterlots sofety
Admlntstroti on
8701 South Gessnsr, Suite 1tt0
ttoustoo, 7X 7707S
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
March 4, 2009
Mr. Dan Nerbonne
Vice President, Engineering
Pfains Pipeline, L. P.
P. O. Box 4648
Houston, Texas 77210-4648
CPF 4-2009-5005
Dear Mr. Nerbonne:
From February to July, 2008, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) and the California State Fire Marshal pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code inspected your records and pipeline facilities in the states of California,
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississippi, and
Texas.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violations are:
()195. 402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall
be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is
effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline
system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where
operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
Plains procedures (Instructions for Form 505 — Tank Inspection) states that each tank
must be inspected monthly and documented on Form 505. A review of the Form 505



2. identified that multiple individuals had multiple ways to fill out Form 505. During the
inspection, multiple Plains employees were asked to perform the monthly tank
inspection. Each individual was qualified to perform this OQ task. It was determined
that the procedure is not being followed.
Also during the inspection of Plains, it was identified that the Plains Form 509, Tank
Overfill Protection Inspection, was improperly filled out for Tank 1200 on 05/05/08; the
tank was out of service for an API 653 inspection as noted on the form but the
acknowledgement of the alarm by the control center is noted for the tank.
t)195. 404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems.
The Plains Pipeline, LP, Pipe Specification Sheet for the No. 3, 10" Pipeline Lumberton
to Eucutta shows that the pipeline has ANSI valves rated at 1440 psi, yet the MOP listed
for all but one section of the pipeline exceeds 1440 psi.
()195. 404 Maps and records.
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be
maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed,
whichever is longer.
As per f195. 432(b) the following items were identified during the inspection of Plains
Pipeline, L. P. :
The Monthly tank inspection records for tank 3800 at Gushing Terminal are not complete
and properly filled out. The December 2006 and April 2007 records are dated and
signed but the items inspected and their condition are not checked.
Tank 4100 was placed in service on November 20, 2007, and according to the records
at Cushing Terminal. There was no record available of the monthly inspection of the
tank in December 2007 on the Plains tank inspection forms.
Plains' does not have a record of the December 2007 inspection of Tank 1296 at Ten
Mile Station. Tank 1296 was placed in service and filled with oil on November 22, 2007.
The tank does not have a monthly tank inspection record. Plains' has a December 17,
2007, emissions inspection performed by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
Plains tank inspection records for Eucutta Station Tanks 1205 and 1241 are not properly
completed. During 2007 and 2008 records indicate that an individual conducted the tank
inspections on February 1, 2007 and March 1, 2007 and another individual conducted
the inspections on April 1, 2008; on these dates Plains' work schedule shows they were
not working, rather they were working the day prior.



$195. 406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no
operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following:
(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.
At Eucutta Station, the MOP of the incoming No. 3 10" Pipeline has an MOP of 1317
psig, downstream of the receiving trap at Eucutta Station there are ANSI 150 valves in
the station piping. There is no overpressure protection provided to ensure that the
pressure in the station piping and valves do not exceed the maximum design pressure of
the valves.
5195. 420 Valve maintenance.
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 'h months, but at least twice
each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning
properly.
According to documentation that was reviewed during the inspection, Valve M-17 and M-
18 was not operated since April 2006, missing 5 inspection cycles. This office
understands that the inspections of these valves were performed in May of 2008.
$195. 428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the
case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7
'/a months, but at least twice each calendar ear, inspect and test each pressure
limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control
equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical
condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it is used.
During the inspection it was identified that ¹1 discharge piping Crane E. was inspected
07/25/2007. The set point was found at 1100 psig and was left at 1100 psig. The MOP
for this system is 640 psig. Plains provided information on May 19, 2008, to indicate that
this was corrected.
7. ()195. 430 Firefighting equipment.
Each operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump
station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be-
(a) In proper operating condition at all times;
(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear; and
(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.
Plains' Fireflghting Equipment procedure addresses the inspection of fire extinguishers
and annual foam system tests. Plains' does not address how the firefighting equipment
is determined to be adequate. In discussions with Plains personnel they stated that a



Fire Plan is developed for each facility and that during pre-construction the Plains safety
department conducts a pre-construction fire requirement determination using a third
party and also works with local fire departments and state fire marshals to determine
various things for the facility - foam dams on tanks, water lines, water point connections,
adequate water supply, etc.
The Fire Plans were checked at several facilities:
At the Eucutta, Lumberton, Ten Mile, and Liberty Stations the Facility Response Plan
covers firefighting. Plains relies on the local fire departments to fight facility fires
Plains has not documented the coordination done with local fire departments to
ensure that the local fire departments are aware of the extent of Plains facilities and
ensure the compatibility of equipment responders in regards to what assistance
would be required from the fire departments and coordination on.
At the Odessa Station there were no fire extinguishers at this station. The fire plan
was requested, but there was no fire plan available. During the week of May 19- 23,
2008, the fire extinguishers were visible at the Odessa Station.
8. t)195. 435 Security of facilities.
Each operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and breakout
area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from vandalism and
unauthorized entry.
During the field evaluation of the Hendricks Tank Farm it was observed that it is not
adequately protected from vandalism and unauthorized entry. At the Hendricks Tank
Farm, livestock fencing is around the perimeter of the facility.
Also, it was noted during the field evaluation of the Jal Tank Farm the security fencing
was not around the facility. It appeared that there was construction equipment at the
facility and the PHMSA inspector was informed that this was temporary situation.
9. I)195. 438 Smoking or open flames.
Each operator shall prohibit smoking and open flames in each pump station area
and each breakout tank area where there is a possibility of the leakage of a
flammable hazardous liquid or of the presence of flammable vapors.
At the time of the inspection, Plains did not have signs posted to indicate that they
prohibited smoking and open flames at the Wink Tank Farm.
10. $195. 505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks.
Plains' installed a Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor System (VpCI) under several breakout tanks
at the Gushing Terminal Facility. The VpCI system is used to provide corrosion
protection to the tank bottoms. Plains has not identified the installation, inspection, and



maintenance of the VpCI as covered tasks. Protection of the tank bottom from corrosion
is an O&M requirements of Part 195.
11. $195. 507 Recordkeeping
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this
subpart.
(a) Qualification records shall include:
(1) Identification of qualified individuals;
(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform;
(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and
(4) Qualification method(s).
Plains is required to have OQ qualification records for individuals performing covered
tasks on the pipeline, the qualifications are to cover current work and work going back 5
years. Plains did not have OQ qualification records for several welders who performed
work on: Tank 7055 at Healdton Station on the Red River System; Tank 1182 at
Lumberton Mississippi; and Tank 553 in Liberty, Mississippi. Plains OQ Procedure
Section 4 does not allow non-qualified personnel to perform covered tasks under
supervision for critical tasks such as welding.
12. I)195. 573 What I must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(c ) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper
performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the second
column.
Device
Rectifier
~Check f e
At least six times each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 2 /k months.
Reverse current switch.
Diode.
Interference bond whose
failure would jeopardize
structural protection.
Other interference bond At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months.
It was identified during the inspection of the Goldsmith-Midland pipeline system that
rectifier inspections exceeded the 2 "/h month cycle for 2006 and 2007. In 2006, there
were 11 rectifiers that exceeded the 2 '/. month cycle and in 2007 there were 6 rectifiers
that exceed the 2 "/k month cycle. Records were validated in 2008 and there were no
rectifiers that exceed the 2 f/k month inspection cycle.
13. $195. 573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion
control as required by $195. 401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline
in an integrity management program under $195. 452, you must correct the
deficiency as required by $195. 452(h).



Plains did not promptly take corrective action for low readings on tanks 800, 1800, 2100,
2200, 2300, and 2500 at Gushing Terminal, prompt corrective action is defined at prior to
the next scheduled inspection — annually, not to exceed 15 months. For tanks with
HDPE bottoms Plains procedure (Spec no. 718) states that "Tanks with HDPE Liners,
the potentials should be taken with permanent reference electrodes and or access
tubes, the potentials taken around the perimeter will give a false level of cathodic
protection. " Tanks 800, 1800, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, and 2500 have HDPE liners.
14. $195. 579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosiong
(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion, you
must—
(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice each
calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7/* months.
At Pauls Valley Station, on the Red River system line, there are no records showing that
the coupon was read between August 2005 and September 2006. Plains' injects
inhibitors in the Red River pipeline for corrosion control.
Pro osed Civil Penalt
Under 49 United States Code, g 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $92, 700 as follows:
Item number
5
11
12
13
14
PENALTY
$22, 500
$11, 300
$16, 300
$31, 300
$11, 300
Wwi ~
w Ite
With respect to items 2, 3, 6 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
item(s). Be advised that failure to do so may result in Plains Pipeline, L. P. being subject to
additional enforcement action.
Pro osed Com liance Order
With respect to items 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10 pursuant to 49 United States Code g 60118, the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains



Pipeline, L. P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a
part of this Notice.
Res onse 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. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
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 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 4-2009-5005 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operatorsin Compliance Proceedings



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code g 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains Pipeline, L. P.
,
a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains Pipeline,
L. P. with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the improperly filling out
the paperwork:
a. Review procedures for the inspection of breakout tanks, including the
inspection of tank overfill protection, and modify the procedures to assure that
employees understand what is required during the inspection of breakout
tanks and how to fill out the appropriate inspection reports.
b. Submit completed procedures and your plan to assure that the procedures
are being followed and carried out by Plains employees.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of overpressure
protection at Eucutta Station for the ANSI 150 valves in the station piping
downstream of the receiving trap on the incoming No. 3 10" Pipeline, Plains will:
b. Provide appropriate pressure protection to the station piping downstream
of the No. 3 10" pipeline at Eucutta Station to protect the Maximum
Operating Pressure of the station piping as determined by the pipe,
valves, and fittings per 195. 406
Review the station piping at Eucutta Station to ensure that jurisdictional
piping, valves, and fittings are properly protected per their Maximum
Operating Pressure.
In regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of adequate fire
fighting equipment and preplanned responses to tank and station fires at Eucutta,
Liberty, Lumberton, Ten Mile and Odessa facilities, Plains will:
Update its Facility Response Plans and Pre-Fire plans for Eucutta,
Liberty, Lumberton, Ten Mile, and Odessa facilities on how tank and
station fires beyond incipient fires will be fought in coordination with the
responding fire departments.
b. Conduct coordination meetings and establish fire plans for tank and
station fires with the fire departments that will respond to fires at Plains'
Eucutta, Liberty, Lumberton, Ten Mile and Odessa facilities.
3. In regard to Item Number 8 of the Notice pertaining to secunty of facilities at the
Hendricks Tank Farm.
a. Review procedures for security of facilities and modify the procedures to



4. assure that they address the security of facilities that they include the
protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry.
b. Submit completed procedures and your plan to assure that the Hendricks
Tank Farm is protected from vandalism and unauthorized entry.
In regard to Item Number 10 of the Notice pertaining to the operator qualification
program, and the Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor System (VpCI):
a. Review and update OQ procedures to assure that individuals that would
install, inspect, and maintain the VpCI will be included in Plains procedures.
b. Submit the revised procedures to assure that procedures include the
installation, inspection, and maintenance of the VpCI.
Plains shall complete the items above within 60 days after receipt of the Final
Order.
Plains Pipeline, L. P. shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M.
Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. Costs shall 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.

420095005_Closure Letter_03282011_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
March 28, 2011
Mr. Troy E. Valenzuela
Vice President, Environmental Health and Safety
Plains Pipeline
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2009-5005
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:
On April 6, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Plains Pipeline a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order
included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of
the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has
been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect
to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration

420095005_FinalOrder_04062010_text.pdf

APR 6 2010
Mr. Troy E. Valenzuela
Vice President—Environmental, Health and Safety
Plains Pipeline, L.P.
333 Clay St., Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2009-5005
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,
assesses a civil penalty of $92,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Plains Pipeline,
L.P., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. I acknowledge receipt of and accept your
wire transfer, dated May 22, 2009, for $92,700 as payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in
the Final Order. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by
the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5255]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Plains Pipeline, L.P., ) CPF No. 4-2009-5005
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From February to July 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and the
California State Fire Marshal conducted an inspection of the records and pipeline facilities of
Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Respondent or Plains), in approximately ten states located in the southern
and western regions of the United States. Plains, a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P., operates approximately 3,500 miles of interstate crude oil and refined petroleum products
pipelines.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Plains,
by letter dated March 4, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
alleged that Plains had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed a civil penalty
of $92,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed to order Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time, Plains responded to the Notice by
submitting a wire transfer on May 22, 2009, in the amount of the proposed civil penalty
($92,700), thereby waiving further right to respond and authorizing entry of this Final Order.
Plains submitted a subsequent letter dated May 28, 2009, in which the company contested certain
other allegations and provided information about the company’s corrective actions.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:



2
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by failing to have and follow written
procedures for filling out tank inspection Form 505. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
different individuals filled out the form in different ways. The Notice further alleged that on
May 5, 2008, Respondent improperly filled out tank overfill protection inspection Form 509 for
Tank 1200, as evidenced by a notation that the control center had acknowledged the high-level
alarm even though the tank was out of service.
In regard to the first allegation, Respondent contended in its Response that the employees
performing tank inspections were all qualified and highly experienced, and that even if they
documented their inspections on Form 505 in different ways, they always achieved their primary
objective of noting and documenting any unsatisfactory conditions. Respondent argued that
“minor inconsistencies in how inspections [were] performed or documented” did not constitute
violations.
were not being followed.
1 Furthermore, Respondent argued the Notice did not specify exactly how procedures
After a review of the evidence in this case, which includes several completed forms as well as
Respondent’s written procedures for filling out Form 505, it appears that the written procedures
were not followed in certain instances. For example, inspection dates were not always entered as
required by Respondent’s procedures (instruction 9), and notations about inspection areas that
had an unsatisfactory condition were not regularly correlated with a description of the condition
(instruction 12). In some instances, a description of corrective action and further evaluation was
not documented for each unsatisfactory condition (instruction 13).
In regard to the second allegation concerning Form 509, Respondent admitted that its employee
noted on the May 5, 2008 form that the control center had acknowledged a high-level alarm.
Plains argued there was nothing improper about such an acknowledgment because a test of the
high-level alarm can be performed regardless of the tank being out-of-service.
After a review of the evidence, which consists of the Form 509 in question, I note that the form
does not indicate whether the high-level alarm set points had been checked as part of the out-of-
service tank inspection. It is not clear how Respondent could have verified that the control
center acknowledged a high-level alarm if the set points were not also checked. More
importantly, the allegation is that Respondent did not have and follow procedures for performing
inspections of out-of-service tanks in this manner. Despite the allegation, Plains did not submit
any evidence demonstrating the company had procedures that permitted or explained the testing
of high-level alarms on out-of-service tanks. In fact, no procedures were submitted for
inspecting out-of-service tanks at all, leading me to find that Respondent did not have and follow
written procedures for the inspections as alleged in the Notice.
1 Response at 1.



3
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for documenting tank inspections on
Form 505. I also find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to have and
follow procedures for performing inspections of out-of-service tanks.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(2), which states:
§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal
operations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds
any of the following . . .
(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.406(a)(2) by failing to provide overpressure
protection to prevent pressure in station piping and valves at Eucutta Station from exceeding
their maximum design pressure. The Notice explained that the maximum operating pressure
(MOP) of the incoming Number 3 pipeline (10-inch) at Eucutta Station exceeded the maximum
design pressure of the valves; therefore, overpressure protection equipment was needed to
prevent station piping and valves from exceeding their maximum design pressure. In its
Response, Plains did not contest the allegation and provided information concerning the
corrective action it had taken. Therefore, after considering all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(2) as alleged in the Notice.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine
that it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect mainline valves
M-17 and M-18 at least twice each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 7½ months,
between April 2006 and May 2008. In its Response, Plains did not contest the allegation and
explained that the inspections were missed due to a misunderstanding between personnel in
adjacent districts about who would conduct the inspections. Plains also provided information
about the corrective action it was taking. Therefore, after considering all of the evidence, I find
that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each mainline valve at the
required intervals.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states:



4
§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.
Each operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each
pump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be—
(a) In proper operating condition at all times;
(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is
clear; and
(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate
firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Respondent’s firefighting equipment procedures did not provide for determining
whether firefighting equipment was adequate, even though Plains personnel indicated that the
company worked with local fire departments and state fire marshals to develop fire plans and
determine which measures of firefighting equipment should be at each facility. In addition, the
Notice alleged that at the Eucutta, Lumberton, Ten Mile, and Liberty stations, Plains relied on
the local fire departments to fight facility fires, but that the company had no documentation to
demonstrate that it had coordinated with local fire departments to ensure they were aware of
Respondent’s facilities and had adequate capabilities to respond to the types of fire emergencies
that could arise. Furthermore, the Notice alleged that Plains did not have fire extinguishers or a
fire plan at the Odessa Station. In its Response, Plains did not contest the allegations and
provided information concerning the corrective action it planned to take. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to
maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436, which states:
§ 195.436 Security of facilities.
Each operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and
breakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from
vandalism and unauthorized entry.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.436 by failing to provide protection against
vandalism and unauthorized entry at two tank farms. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the
Hendricks Tank Farm only had livestock fencing around its perimeter. The Jal Tank Farm
allegedly did not have security fencing entirely around the perimeter, but the Notice explained
that this condition may have been a temporary situation due to construction.
In its Response, Plains contested the allegation of violation with regard to the Hendricks Tank
Farm and contended that added security was not required because it was a very low security risk
facility. Plains also stated that the Hendricks and Jal stations are not critical pipeline facilities
under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) vulnerability assessment requirements.
Respondent acknowledged that a section of fencing around the Jal Tank Farm had been removed
due to construction activities, but the perimeter fencing around the station had been restored.
Section 195.436 requires pipeline operators to provide protection from vandalism and
unauthorized entry for “each pumping station and breakout tank area and other exposed facility.”
The regulations do not exempt from this requirement facilities located in rural areas, those that



5
have not experienced vandalism in the past, or facilities that are not “critical” under DHS
regulations.
Therefore, Respondent is required to provide protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry
for both the Hendricks and Jal stations. The evidence demonstrates Respondent had not
provided such protection to either station at the time of the OPS inspection. Livestock fencing
keeps livestock out, but does not protect from vandalism and unauthorized entry. Security
fencing that does not extend entirely around the perimeter is also vulnerable to unauthorized
entry and vandalism.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.436 by failing to provide protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry at the two tank
farms.
Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written
qualification program that included the identification of all covered tasks.
Notice alleged that Plains had not identified the covered tasks of installing, inspecting, and
maintaining its Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor (VpCI) system, which the company installed under
breakout tanks at the Cushing Terminal Facility to protect the tank bottoms against corrosion.
The Notice alleged that protection of the tank bottom from corrosion is an operations and
maintenance requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, making the installation, inspection, and
maintenance of the VpCI system covered tasks.
2 Specifically, the
In its Response, Plains contested the allegation of violation and explained that the company did
not have a qualification program for the VpCI system because it was a proprietary system that a
vendor had installed and tested. Plains indicated that since the system was proprietary, the
company did not have subject-matter expertise to develop a qualification program for personnel
to act as qualification evaluators. Respondent also explained that the vendor’s personnel who
installed the system had NACE certifications, as well as “qualifications on various CP covered
system as a covered task and its personnel could be qualified to perform that task based on
tasks.”3 Plains indicated that it had now identified the maintenance and monitoring of the VpCI
training by the system vendor and a written exam developed by Plains.
2 A “covered task” is an activity, identified by the operator, that: (1) is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) is an
operations or maintenance task; (3) is performed as a requirement of this part; and (4) affects the operation or
integrity of the pipeline. § 195.501(b).
3 Response at 5. NACE International is a professional organization that offers training and certifications in
corrosion control.



6
PHMSA recognizes there will be instances in which a pipeline operator may contract for the
performance of specialized services for which company personnel do not have subject-matter
expertise. In such situations however, § 195.505 still requires the pipeline operator to identify
the covered tasks that will be performed and to ensure that persons performing such tasks are
capable of performing the task and able to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions
(AOCs). For purposes of these requirements, there is no difference between tasks performed by
third-party contractors or pipeline employees—all covered tasks performed on the pipeline must
be identified and all persons qualified.4
Plains had not identified the installation, inspection, and maintenance of the VpCI system as a
covered task prior to the task being performed. There is also no evidence that Plains worked
with the contractor, despite the system’s proprietary designation, to ensure that the vendor’s
personnel were qualified and could recognize and react to potential AOCs that might arise on the
Plains pipeline system.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program that included the
identification of covered tasks associated with the VpCI system.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.507, which states:
§ 195.507 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with
this subpart.
(a) Qualification records shall include:
(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);
(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to
perform;
(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and
(4) Qualification method(s).
(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.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.507 by failing to maintain qualification
records for several welders who performe
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 72695