{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125020","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":"2012-05-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(d), 195.432(b), 195.579(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.428(d),  195.432(b),  195.579(b). The case was opened on 2012-05-10 and is reported as closed as of 2014-04-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125020_Closure_04162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_Closure_04162014.pdf\n\n420125020_Closure_04162014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_Closure_04162014_text.pdf\n\n420125020_Final Order_05172013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_Final%20Order_05172013.pdf\n\n420125020_Final Order_05172013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_Final%20Order_05172013_text.pdf\n\n420125020_NOPV PCO_05102012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_NOPV%20PCO_05102012.pdf\n\n420125020_NOPV PCO_05102012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_NOPV%20PCO_05102012_text.pdf\n\n420125020_Operator Response to Notice_07022012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125020/420125020_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07022012.pdf\n\n420125020_Closure_04162014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 16, 2014\nMr. Troy Valenzuela\nVice President of Environmental Health and Safety\nPlains Pipeline, L.P.\n333 Clay St\nSuite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2012-5020\nDear Mr. Valenzuela:\nOn multiple occasions from June 27 to December 2, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code was onsite and\ninspected records and facilities associated with Plains Pipeline Company’s (Plains) interstate liquid pipeline\nsystem. PHMSA staff reviewed compliance records and procedures in Longview, Midland, and Houston,\nTX, and Belle Chase, LA. PHMSA staff also inspected physical facilities in Texas, New Mexico, and\nLouisiana.\nA Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order was issued to Plains Pipeline, L.P. on May\n10, 2012. The Final Order with Compliance Order was issued on May 17, 2013.\nPlains submitted documentation on August 21, 2013, of inspections, actions, training and amended\nprocedures. My staff reviewed the information provided, and it appears that the requirement of the Final\nOrder has been met.\nThis letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for\nyour cooperation.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420125020_Final Order_05172013_text.pdf\n\nMAY 17, 2013\nMr. Harry N. Pefanis\nPresident and Chief Operating Officer\nPlains Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5020, Plains Pipeline, LP\nDear Mr. Pefanis:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Plains Pipeline, LP, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice-President, Environmental, Health and Safety, Plains\nPipeline, LP\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)\nPlains Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5020\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions from June 27 to December 2, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and\nrecords of Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Respondent), in Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico.\nPlains is a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, which operates 18,000 miles of crude\noil, natural gas liquids, and refined products pipelines and gathering systems in the United\n1\nStates.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 10, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Plains had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.428(d), 195.432(b), and 195.579(b), and\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nOn June 12, 2012, Plains requested an extension of time to respond to the Notice. OPS granted\nan extension of the deadline to July 3, 2012. Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated\nJuly 2, 2012 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but asserted\nthat it neither owned nor operated the facilities in question and provided information concerning\nthe actions it had taken to address the issues raised in the Notice. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(d), which states:\n1 See http://www.paalp.com/Our-Company/Overview-1643.html (last accessed December 31, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year… inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve,\npressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,\nand is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is used.\n(b) In the case of relief valves on pressure breakout tanks containing\nhighly volatile liquids, each operator shall test each valve at intervals not\nexceeding 5 years…\n(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)\nof this section for inspection and testing of pressure control equipment\napply to the inspection and testing of overfill protection systems.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(d) by failing to fulfill the\nrequirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 195.428 as they pertain to the inspection and testing\nof overfill protection systems. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains had no records of the\ninspections and tests required for overfill protection systems on breakout tanks at the Alliance\nand Murphy refineries and that were used to relieve pressure surges on the Plains pipeline\nsystem.\nIn its Response, Plains did not contest the facts underlying the allegation of violation. Plains\nnoted, however, that it neither owned nor operated the tanks in question; the company asserted\nthat ConocoPhillips owned and operated the tank at the Alliance refinery in Belle Chasse,\nLouisiana, and that Valero Energy owned and operated the tank at the Murphy refinery in\nMeraux, Louisiana. The company noted that such third-party operation of the facilities presented\n“practical challenges to Plains’ ability to access, inspect and test the equipment.”\nIn addition, Plains stated that it believed the tanks in question were actually “storage tanks\nsubject to EPA regulations applicable to non-transportation-related facilities.”2 Plains cited a\nFebruary 4, 2000 memorandum, known as the “Felder/Luftig Memo,” which clarified\njurisdictional issues and established mutual goals between PHMSA and the Environmental\nProtection Agency (EPA) regarding breakout tanks and oil storage tanks.3 Plains stated that it\nbelieved one of the examples in the memo, Attachment 3, applied to the circumstances in this\ncase, and that the tanks in question were storage tanks subject to EPA regulations, not breakout\ntanks subject to Part 195.\nSection 195.2 defines “breakout tank” as “a tank used to (a) relieve surges in a hazardous liquid\npipeline system or (b) receive and store hazardous liquid transported by a pipeline for reinjection\nand continued transportation by pipeline.” The Felder/Luftig memorandum does not purport to\n2 Response at 1-2.\n3 Available at http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/spcc/guidance/H_BreakoutTankMemo.pdf (last accessed\nApril 29, 2013).\n\n\n\n3\nchange this definition or affect the regulations in Part 195 which apply to breakout tanks.\nFurthermore, the memo states, “[o]wners or operators of a complex facility must comply with all\nthe regulatory requirements of both agencies when both agencies have jurisdiction. An example\nof dual jurisdiction is a bulk storage container serving as a tank storing oil while also serving as a\nbreakout tank for a pipeline or other transportation purpose.”4 This appears to describe the\ncircumstances in this case.\nThe Notice alleged that these tanks had been used to relieve surges on the Plains pipeline; Plains\ndid not dispute this.5 Therefore, I find that the tanks in question are breakout tanks. Because\nPlains uses these tanks to relieve surges on its pipeline system, the tanks must be operated and\nmaintained as pressure control equipment. Under § 195.428(a), it is the pipeline operator’s\nresponsibility to inspect and test these systems periodically to ensure they are functioning\nproperly. This includes the inspection and testing of overfill protection systems on breakout\ntanks.\nWhile it may pose practical difficulties for a pipeline operator to ensure that breakout tanks\nowned and maintained by another company but used to protect the pipeline operator’s facilities\nare properly inspected and tested under Part 195 and that such tests are properly documented, the\nregulation imposes an obligation on the pipeline operator to ensure that breakout tanks used to\nprotect its system meet the requirements of § 195.428. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(d) by failing to inspect and\ntest each item of pressure control equipment at the required intervals.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto [American Petroleum Institute (API)] Standard 653 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to\nthe tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan\nincluded in the operations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of in-service aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Plains had no record of the physical integrity inspections of\nbreakout tanks at the Alliance and Murphy refineries, which were used to relieve surges from the\nPlains pipeline system.\nIn its Response, Plains did not contest the facts underlying the allegation of violation. Plains\nstated that it believed the tanks in question were actually storage tanks and not subject to the\n4 Felder/Luftig Memo at 2.\n5 Response at 2. Plains noted, “In the past 5 years we have less than 1 barrel of product relieved from the pipelines\ninto the refinery tanks.”\n\n\n\n4\nrequirements of Part 195. As discussed above, these tanks appear to serve dual purposes, but as\nlong as they are used as breakout tanks for Plains’ system, they must be inspected and\nmaintained as such. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-\nservice aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal\ncorrosion, you must—\n(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the\npipeline system that the inhibitors are designed to protect;\n(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the\neffectiveness of the inhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and\n(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b) by failing to examine the\ncoupons it used to monitor internal corrosion, at least twice each calendar year but with intervals\nnot exceeding 7½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to examine the\ncoupon at the Calumet refinery at the required interval. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b) by failing to examine the coupons it used to monitor\ninternal corrosion at least twice each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.428(d), 195.432(b), and 195.579(b), respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. 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 §§ 195.428(d) and 195.432(b) (Items 1 and 2),\nRespondent must inspect or provide records of inspections of the physical\nintegrity and the overfill protection systems of the breakout tanks used to relieve\nsurges on its pipeline system at the Alliance and Murphy refineries. Plains must\nsubmit documentation of completion of these activities to the Director within 90\ndays of receipt of this Final Order.\n\n\n\n5\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.579(b) (Item 3), Respondent must review\nits program for monitoring and mitigating internal corrosion. Plains must\nevaluate the need for additional coupon monitoring locations, review its pigging\nprocedures and the implementation of those procedures to ensure the highest\nlikelihood of collecting liquid and solid samples for laboratory examination, and\nevaluate the need to monitor acid-producing bacteria and sulfate-reducing\nbacteria. Plains must implement a policy to obtain records of coupon monitoring\nas they are generated and maintain them separately from the contractor that\nperforms the monitoring. Plains must submit documentation of completion of\nthese activities to the Director within 90 days of receipt of this Final Order.\n3. It is requested that Plains maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the cost to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total\ncost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and\nanalyses; and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other\nchanges to 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.\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. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17817}