{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125015","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(5), 195.52, 195.54(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(5),  195.52,  195.54(a). The case was opened on 2012-04-24 and is reported as closed as of 2013-04-30. Proposed civil penalty: $36,200. Assessed civil penalty: $36,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125015_Closure_04302013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_Closure_04302013.pdf\n\n420125015_Closure_04302013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_Closure_04302013_text.pdf\n\n420125015_Final Order_10182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_Final%20Order_10182012.pdf\n\n420125015_Final Order_10182012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_Final%20Order_10182012_text.pdf\n\n420125015_NOPV PCP PCO_04242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242012.pdf\n\n420125015_NOPV PCP PCO_04242012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242012_text.pdf\n\n420125015_Operator Response to NOTICE_05242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125015/420125015_Operator%20Response%20to%20NOTICE_05242012.pdf\n\n420125015_NOPV PCP PCO_04242012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 24, 2012\nMr. Jerry Ashcroft\nVice President, Field Operations\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreiningville, PA 18031\nCPF 4-2012-5015\nDear Mr. Ashcroft:\nBetween April 25 and July 14, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code was onsite\nand inspected your pipeline facilities in El Paso, TX.\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 the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual\nof written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities\nand handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and\nappropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This\n\n\n\nmanual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance\nactivities are conducted.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and\nnormal operations:\n(5) Analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes.\nBuckeye did not follow their procedures to conduct an analysis of the pipeline accident\nthat was discovered in January 2011 on Tank 1001 to determine the cause of the accident.\nIn January 2011, Buckeye’s personnel noticed a small stain at the bottom of Tank 1001.\nAfter investigating the source of the stain, it was determined to be product leaking out of\nTank 1001. The tank had to be placed out of service to conduct testing in order to find\nthe source of the leak. On January 26, 2011 and February 10, 2011, a Helium Leak Test\nand Magnetic Particle Inspection (MT) were conducted to find the source of the leak on\nthe bottom of Tank 1001. The leak was a small pinhole leak that was very difficult to\nfind. The MT performed found a crack like feature at the shell/bottom weld. There is no\nevidence or documents of an analysis being performed to find the root cause of the crack\nlike feature.\nBuckeye’s procedures, ‘2. Internal Release Investigation Procedures’ and ‘2.2 Medium\nLevel’ require that all DOT written reportable product release be investigated for the root\ncause of the incident. Buckeye did not perform the root cause analysis.\n2. §195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported\nunder §195.50 shall as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days after discovery\nof the accident, prepare and file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1, or a\nfacsimile.\nBuckeye failed to report a pipeline accident, which met the requirements of §195.50(e),\nwhich occurred in January 2011 on Tank 1001 within 30 days after discovery of the\naccident.\nIn January 2011, Buckeye’s personnel noticed a small stain at the bottom of Tank 1001.\nAfter investigating the source of the stain, it was determined to be product leaking out of\nTank 1001. The tank had to be placed out of service to conduct testing in order to find\nthe source of the leak. On January 26, 2011 and February 10, 2011, a Helium Leak Test\nand Magnetic Particle Inspection (MT) were conducted to find the source of the leak on\nthe bottom of Tank 1001. The leak was a small pinhole leak that was very difficult to\nfind. The MT performed found a crack like feature at the shell/bottom weld. The cost\nassociated with these activities exceeded the reportable criteria of $50,000 per §195.50.\n2\n\n\n\nBuckeye’s procedure, ‘1. Release Notification Procedure, 1.1.2.2,’ states that within 30\ndays of a DOT reportable release, Buckeye shall file an accident report on DOT Form\n7000-1. At the time of the inspection a report had not been filed.\n3. §195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery of a release of the\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide transported resulting in an event described\nin §195.50, the operator of the system shall give notice, in accordance with\nparagraph (b) of this section, of any failure that:\n(3) Caused estimated property damage, including cost of cleanup and recovery,\nvalue of lost product, and damage to the property of the operator or others,\nor both, exceeding $50,000;\nBuckeye did not give notice at the earliest practicable moment after discovery of a release\nof hazardous material, which caused estimated property damage, including cost of\ncleanup and recovery, value of lost product, and damage to the property of the operator or\nothers, or both, exceeding $50,000.\nIn January 2011, Buckeye’s personnel noticed a small stain at the bottom of Tank 1001.\nAfter investigating the source of the stain, it was determined to be product leaking out of\nTank 1001. The tank had to be placed out of service to conduct testing in order to find\nthe source of the leak. On January 26, 2011 and February 10, 2011, a Helium Leak Test\nand Magnetic Particle Inspection (MT) were conducted to find the source of the leak on\nthe bottom of Tank 1001. The leak was a small pinhole leak that was very difficult to\nfind. The MT performed found a crack like feature at the shell/bottom weld. The cost\nassociated with these activities exceeded the reportable criteria of $50,000 per §195.50.\nBuckeye’s procedure, ‘1. Release Notification Procedure, 1.1.2.1,’ states that at the\nearliest practicable moment following discovery of a release meeting the criteria, local\nmanagement shall notify the National Response Center by telephone. At the time of the\ninspection a report had not been filed.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $36,200 as follows:\n3\n\n\n\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $20,000\n2 $16,200\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Be advised that\nfailure to do so may result in Buckeye Partners being subject to additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Buckeye\nPartners, LP. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice.\nResponse 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 4-2012-5015 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Buckeye Partners, LP a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Buckeye\nPartners, LP with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the pipeline accident that\nwas discovered in January 2011 on Tank 1001, Buckeye Partners, LP must\nperform a root cause analysis to determine the cause of the accident, to comply\nwith §195.402(c)(5).\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the pipeline accident that\nwas discovered in January 2011 on Tank 1001, Buckeye Partners, LP must\nprepare and file and accident report on DOT Form 7000-1 to the Pipeline and\nHazardous Material Safety Administration, to comply with §195.54(a).\n3. Buckeye Partners, LP should complete items 1 and 2 within 90 days of receipt of\nthe Final Order.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye Partners, LP maintain documentation\nof the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order\nand submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n420125015_Final Order_10182012_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 18, 2012\nMr. Clark Smith\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nSuite 600\nHouston, TX 77046\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5015\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $36,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nBuckeye Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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. Thomas (Scott) Collier, Director, Performance Assurance, Buckeye Partners, LP,\nFive TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA 18031\nMr. Rod M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5015\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween April 25 and July 14, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Buckeye Partners, LP’s (Buckeye or\nRespondent) facilities in El Paso, Texas. Specifically, OPS inspected Buckeye’s 28-mile\npipeline that transports refined petroleum products from El Paso, Texas, to Mexico and three\nrelated breakout tanks.1 Buckeye owns and operates approximately 6,000 miles of pipelines\ntransporting refined petroleum products and highly volatile liquids.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 24, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nBuckeye had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $36,200 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further\naction but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement\naction.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated May 24, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested certain items and requested that PHMSA reconsider the proposed civil penalty amount.\nBuckeye did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), dated April 24, 2012 (on file with PHMSA).\n2 http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx and\nhttp://www.buckeye.com/AboutUs/tabid/54/Default.aspx (last accessed on June 22, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\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. § 195.402(c)(5), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations\nand emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate\nchanges made as necessary to insure the manual is effective. . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) . . .\n(5) Analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(5) by failing to follow its\nown written procedures for analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes. The Notice\nalleged that in January 2011, Buckeye personnel noticed a small stain at the bottom of Tank\n1001. Buckeye determined that it was a pinhole leak and took Tank 1001 out of service. The\ncompany then performed a helium leak test and a magnetic particle inspection, finding the source\nof the leak to be a crack-like feature in the tank floor. PHMSA alleged that according to Section\n2 of Buckeye’s Internal Release Investigation Procedures and specifically “Section 2.2 -\nMedium Level,” Buckeye was required to perform a root cause analysis of this release but failed\nto do so.\nIn its Response, Buckeye stated that the leak was not initially reportable and therefore any delay\nin performing the analysis did not constitute a violation. Buckeye asserted that the leak was at\nfirst treated as a low-level leak and therefore did not need a root cause analysis according to\ncompany procedures. However, on October 24, 2012, Buckeye determined that it was a\nreportable release under DOT regulations since the costs associated with the repair exceeded\n$50,000. Therefore, a root cause analysis was required. Buckeye stated that after determining\nthe cost of repair would exceed the $50,000 threshold, it filed the DOT Form 7000-1 on\nOctober 24, 2011, and provided the root cause analysis in Part G-8 of the Form. Buckeye\nmaintained that it was not in violation of the regulation since its procedures did not require a\nspecific timeframe within which it had to conduct the analysis.\nAlthough Buckeye has now submitted PHMSA Form 7000-1, stating that the accident occurred\ndue to a ¼-inch crack in the floor plate, Buckeye still has not analyzed the cause of the crack. In\naddition, Buckeye acknowledged in its Response that it needed additional information from the\ntank installation contractor to complete the incident investigation report.3 Therefore, I find that\n3 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nBuckeye violated § 195.402(c)(5) by failing to follow its own procedures requiring a root cause\nanalysis for a reportable release. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nBuckeye violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(5) by failing to follow its own procedures for analyzing\npipeline accidents to determine their causes.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a), which states:\n§ 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be\nreported under § 195.50 must, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30\ndays after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form\n7000-1.4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a) by failing to file an accident\nreport within 30 days of discovery of an accident that was reportable under § 195.50.\nSpecifically, it alleged that Buckeye failed to file an accident report within 30 days of a release\nthat occurred on Tank 1001 in January 2011. OPS alleged in the Notice that this release met the\nreporting requirements of § 195.50(e) (i.e., estimated property damage exceeding $50,000) and\ntherefore Buckeye should have filed a DOT Form 7000-1 within 30 days. At the time of the\ninspection, Buckeye still had not filed the required accident report.\nIn its Response, Buckeye stated that this release was first discovered on January 13, 2011, but\nthat it was not until October 24, 2011, that Buckeye determined the estimated costs of\ninvestigation and repair exceeded the $50,000 threshold. Buckeye asserted that it then\nimmediately filed the required report.5 Therefore, Buckeye requested that PHMSA withdraw\nthis Item.\nAt the time of the inspection, Buckeye personnel stated to PHMSA staff that the tank was still\nunder warranty and therefore Buckeye had no direct costs for the cleanup and repairs. Buckeye\nfurther stated that it did not consider costs covered by the warranty to be part of the estimated\ncleanup costs for § 195.50 purposes.6 I find that regardless of whether the tank was under\nwarranty or not, all property damage and cleanup costs must be considered by an operator in\ndetermining whether an accident meets the $50,000 threshold. Accordingly, after considering all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a) by failing to file an\naccident report (DOT Form 7000-1) within 30 days of the January 2011 release.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n4 The Notice inadvertently quoted the former version of 49 C.F.R. § 195.54, which had been amended as of the date\nof the violation. The amendments to § 195.54, however, were not substantive and do not affect the allegations of\nviolation in the Notice.\n5 Response at 2 (stating that the Accident Report was filed on October 24, 2011).\n6 Violation Report at 9.\n\n\n\n4\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\n49 U.S.C. § 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.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $36,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(5), for failing to follow its own procedures requiring a root cause\nanalysis of the January release on Tank 1001. In its Response, Buckeye requested a reduced\ncivil penalty because there was no specified time for completing the analysis. The proposed civil\npenalty in this case was calculated based on the civil penalty assessment factors, including the\nextended period of non-compliance, the operator’s prior enforcement history, and the fact that\nPHMSA discovered the violation. However, the reduced gravity of the violation (the fact that\nthe safe operation of a pipeline was minimally affected) was also taken into account.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the penalty assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $20,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(5).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.54, for failing to file an accident report within 30 days of the January 2011\nrelease. In its Response, Buckeye requested that the probable violation and proposed civil\npenalty be withdrawn. As discussed above, I have already made a finding of violation for Item\n2. The proposed civil penalty associated with this item was based on the civil penalty\nassessment factors, including the operator’s prior enforcement history, the fact that PHMSA\ndiscovered the violation, and the reduced gravity of the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the penalty assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$16,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.54.\nIn summary, upon review of all the evidence and consideration of the assessment criteria for\neach of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $36,200.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $36,200 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\n\n\n\n5\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 Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. 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 has\nindicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address one of the cited violations:\n1. Respondent has filed the required Accident Report on DOT Form 7000-1.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(5) (Item 1) pertaining to\nthe pipeline accident that was discovered in January 2011 on Tank 1001, Buckeye\nmust perform a root cause analysis to determine the cause of the accident.\n2. Order.\nBuckeye must complete Compliance Item 1 within 90 days of receipt of the Final\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n(1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes\nto pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\n\n\n\n6\nWITHDRAWAL OF WARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.52 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to file a telephonic\nnotice with the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable\nmoment following discovery of a release of product that met the threshold of\n§ 195.50.\nIn its Response, Buckeye stated that although the release did not meet the reporting\nrequirements, it did file a NRC Report on January 14, 2011. I have reviewed the NRC Report\n# 964719 attached to the Response and find that Buckeye met its obligations under § 195.52.\nTherefore, I am withdrawing this warning item.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420125015_Closure_04302013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 30, 2013\nMr. Thomas S. (Scott) Collier\nVice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, L.P.\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Blvd.\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 4-2012-5015\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn October 18, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued Buckeye Partners, L.P. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":30351}