{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420155025","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":"2015-10-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.214(a), 195.222(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155025.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155025.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155025","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420155025","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.214(a),  195.222(a). The case was opened on 2015-10-29 and is reported as closed as of 2016-12-27. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_06302017.pdf\n\n420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf\n\n420155025_Final Order_12272016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Final%20Order_12272016.pdf\n\n420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Final%20Order_12272016_text.pdf\n\n420155025_NOPV PCO_10292015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20PCO_10292015.pdf\n\n420155025_NOPV PCO_10292015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20PCO_10292015_text.pdf\n\n420155025_Operator Response to Notice_12022015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12022015.pdf\n\n420155025_Petition for Reconsideration_01232017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01232017.pdf\n\n420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf\n\nJune 30, 2017\nMr. Greg Armstrong\nChairman and CEO\nPlains All American Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2015-5025\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It\ngrants your Petition for Reconsideration and withdraws both findings of violation contained in\nthe Final Order. The Final Order did not require any compliance actions or assess a civil\npenalty, and therefore this case is now closed. Service of the Decision by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Dean Gore, Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002\nMr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental, Health, & Safety\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002\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. 4-2015-5025\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON RECONSIDERATION\nBetween April 2014 and October 2015, 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 several on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Plains\nAll American Pipeline, LP d/b/a Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Petitioner), for Plains’ Jal, New\nMexico, to Wink, Texas pipeline construction project (Project).\nAs a result of the inspections, on October 29, 2015, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS\n(Director), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to\nPlains.1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), and proposed ordering Petitioner to take\ncertain corrective actions to address these alleged violations. Plains responded to the Notice by\nletter dated December 2, 2015 (Response), contesting the Notice’s allegations and requesting that\nthe Notice be withdrawn. 2 Plains did not request a hearing.\nOn December 27, 2016, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this\nproceeding.3 The order found that Plains had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a)\nand 195.222(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Final Order also found that Plains had taken action\nto satisfy the proposed compliance order. Although no corrective action or civil penalties were\nordered, the Final Order stated that these findings of violation would be considered prior\noffenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Plains.\n1 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), C.P.F. No. 4-2015-5025 (Oct. 29, 2015)\n(available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20\n&%20PCO_10292015_text.pdf).\n2 Plains Response to Notice (Response), (Dec. 2, 2015) (on file with PHMSA).\n3 In the Matter of Plains Pipeline, LP, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2015-5025, 2016 WL 8223691 (Dec. 27, 2016)\n(Final Order).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 2\nPlains filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order on January 23,\n2017, seeking reconsideration of both findings of violation and withdrawal of the Final Order.\nPlains attached new evidence to the Petition in support of its arguments, some of which Plains\nasserted was inadvertently omitted from its Response. Other evidence was not submitted with its\nResponse because Plains assumed PHMSA already had the evidence.\nHaving considered the new evidence submitted, I find that Plains has demonstrated that it did not\nviolate the regulations as previously determined in the December 27, 2016 Final Order.\nAccordingly, for the reasons below, I am granting the Petition for Reconsideration and\nwithdrawing both findings of violation contained in the Final Order.\nStandard of Review\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an\nappeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is instead an opportunity for\nrespondents to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that\nwas not previously available, if the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such\ninformation was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny,\nin whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request\nadditional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the respondent\nmust submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to\nissuance of the final order.\nPlains presented new evidence in its Petition and asserted that this evidence should be considered\non reconsideration. The Petition states that “documents intended to be included with the\n[Response] were inadvertently omitted when . . . submitted.” These documents include purchase\norders, shipping papers, and milltest reports that are central to Petitioner’s assertion that X52\npipe was used for welder qualifications. It is clear from the record that these documents were not\nincluded with the Response, though Attachment 1 to the Response does include two icons that\nappear to be failed attachments. I am considering these documents, given their probative value\nand the appearance that Petitioner attempted to submit these documents earlier.\nAdditionally, Plains included in the Petition an affidavit from Plains’ Director of Environmental\nand Regulatory Compliance. The affidavit contains several factual statements that were not\npreviously part of the record. Petitioner states that it “knew that PHMSA already had the\ninformation” contained in the affidavit, particularly that X52 pipe was used, “and as such the\n[Response] referred to [PHMSA’s September 22 to September 24, 2014] inspection but did not\nprovide further documentation.” Petitioner further states that “this information should have been\nconsidered by PHMSA but it is not noted in the NOPV/PCO.” I find that Petitioner has stated a\nvalid reason why it did not present this information more clearly in its Response and as such I\nwill consider this information.\nI am, therefore, considering the additional arguments and evidence offered by Plains in its\nPetition, and turn now to reconsideration of the findings of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 3\nDiscussion\nA. Qualification of Welding Procedures (49 C.F.R. § 195.214)\nItem 1 in the Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states:\n§195.214 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding\noperator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,\nsection 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see\n§195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the test welds used\nto qualify welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing.\nThe Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds without\nhaving a properly-qualified welding procedure. Specifically, the Final Order found that Plains\nused API 5L X42 base material to qualify welders on the Project, and that X42 material was\noutside of the base material range specified by the welding procedures used by Plains (CS-\nG60L203 and CS-F52M214). As Plains’ welders performed qualification tests using a grade of\nmaterial not specified by the welding procedures, the Final Order found that there was a violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) and API Standard 1104 by failing to have properly-qualified welding\nprocedures.\nPetitioner asserted that several newly-submitted documents confirm that X52 pipe was used\nduring welder qualification, and that X42 was erroneously transcribed. Assuming that X52 was\nused as the base material for qualification, this material would be within the base material range\nspecified by the welding procedures. Petitioner further asserted that the material used to qualify\nindividual welders has no impact on whether the welding procedure is itself properly qualified.\nFor the reasons discussed in more detail below, I find that X52 material was correctly used to\nqualify the welders, not X42. In addition, after considering all of the evidence, I find the\nmaterial used to qualify the individual welders did not demonstrate the welding procedure itself\nwas improperly qualified. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner did not violate 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified welding\nprocedure, as alleged in the Notice and found in the Final Order. This violation is withdrawn.\nB. Qualification of Welders (49 C.F.R. § 195.222)\nItem 2 in the Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states:\n§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualifications of welders\nand welding operators.\n(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance\nwith section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel\nCode (BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 4\nor welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than an edition listed\nin §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.4\nThe Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to properly\nqualify welders who performed welding on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104.\nSpecifically, the Final Order found that Plains qualified welders using API 5L X42 base material,\nwhich was5 not allowed under their provided welding procedure specifications (CS-G60L203\nand CS-F52M214). While Plains argued prior to issuance of the Final Order that X52 pipe was\nused, and that X42 was erroneously transcribed as the material used, the Final Order determined\nthat no evidence in the record supported this argument, such as material test reports.\nPlains produced new information in the Petition, including the documents that Plains purportedly\nintended to attach to the Response. Exhibit 1 of the Petition consists of purchase orders and\nmilltest reports for the X52 pipe, which was delivered to the testing facility on June 20, 2014,\nused to conduct qualifications testing, and used to qualify 35 welders on June 23, 2014. The\nPetition also references the retention, by Plains’ contractor Pumpco, of the test fittings used for\nwelder qualification. Additionally, the Petition included an affidavit from Plains’ Director of\nEnvironmental and Regulatory Compliance regarding a PHMSA inspector’s site visit to\nPumpco’s welder-qualification test site. The affidavit states that Pumpco had “stacked the used\ntest fittings in with other scrap pipe and steel scrap at the back of their yard.” The test pipe\nnipples each had the “welder’s name and unique ID (stencil) . . . marked on each test set,” and a\ndemonstration was performed of how “each welder could be traced back and matched to a\nspecific test nipple set.” These exhibits suffice to show that X52 pipe was used for welder\nqualification.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that X52 material was used, and that this base\nmaterial comports with the provided welding procedure specifications. Accordingly, after\nconsideration of this argument and reconsideration of the record, including the newly presented\nevidence, I find that Petitioner did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to qualify each\nwelder on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104, as alleged in the Notice and found\nin the Final Order. This violation is withdrawn.\nRELIEF GRANTED\nBased on the new information provided in the Petition, a review of the relevant portions of the\nrecord, and for the reasons stated above, I am granting the Petition for Reconsideration and\nwithdrawing the findings of violation in the Final Order.\nThis Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nJune 30, 2017\n_____________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n4 API 1104, Section 6.1, referenced by §195.222(a) above, states “[t]he purpose of the welder qualification test is to\ndetermine the ability of welders to make sound butt or fillet welds using previously qualified procedures.”\n\n420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 27, 2016\nMr. Greg Armstrong\nChairman and CEO\nPlains Pipeline, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2015-5025\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and withdraws the compliance order issued to Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). Therefore,\nthis case is now 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,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental, Health, & Safety\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002\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, L.P., ) CPF No. 4-2015-5025\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between April 2014 and October 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains or Respondent) for Plains’ Jal, New Mexico to Wink,\nTexas pipeline construction project (Project). Respondent is engaged in the transport and storage\nof crude oil and natural gas in the United States and Canada, with more than 19,000 miles of\npipeline and 135 million barrels of storage capacity.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 29, 2015, 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. §§ 195.214 and 195.222 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nPlains responded to the Notice by letter dated December 2, 2015 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations by offering additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the Notice be withdrawn. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n1 Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do (last\naccessed July 7, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 2\n§ 195.214 Welding Procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding\noperator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,\nsection 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see\n§195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the test welds used\nto qualify welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing.\nAPI Standard 1104 provides, in relevant part:\n5.1 PROCEDURE QUALIFICTION\nBefore production welding is started, a detailed procedure specification\nshall be established and qualified to demonstrate that welds with suitable\nmechanical properties (such as strength, ductility, and hardness) and\nsoundness can be made by the procedure. The quality of the welds shall be\ndetermined by destructive testing. These procedures shall be adhered to\nexcept where a change is specifically authorized by the company, as\nprovided for in 5.4.\n. . . .\n5.4.1 General\nA welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure\nspecification and must be completely requalified when any of the essential\nvariables listed in 5.4.2 are changed. . . .\n5.4.2.2 Base Material\nA change in base material constitutes an essential variable. When\nwelding materials of two separate material groups, the procedure for the\nhigher strength group shall be used. For the purposes of this standard, all\nmaterials shall be grouped as follows:\na. Specified minimum yield strength less than or equal to 42,000 psi\n(290 MPa).\nb. Specified minimum yield strength greater than 42,000 psi (290 MPa)\nbut less than 65,000 psi (448 MPa).\nc. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than\nor equal to 65,000 psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate\nqualification test. (Emphasis added).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the\nProject without having a properly-qualified welding procedure. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat, during the inspection, PHMSA requested the welding procedure used to construct the\npipeline in the Project and copies of the welder qualification records. The Notice alleged that\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 3\nPlains initially provided Welding Procedure Specification CS-G60L2032 as the welding\nprocedure used in the Project. Welding procedure CS-G60L203 specified a range of base\nmaterials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60. The Notice alleged that welders on the Project\nhad been qualified using API 5L X42 material, which is outside of the range of base materials\nspecified by procedure CS-G60L203. The Welder Qualification Records3 for the Project,\nattached as exhibits to PHMSA’s Pipeline Violation Safety Report dated October 29, 2015\n(Violation Report), showed the use of “X42” grade pipe. Accordingly, PHMSA alleged that\nPlains’ welders had performed qualification tests using a grade of material, API 5L X42, that\nwas not specified by the welding procedure.\nAfter PHMSA identified the above-described issue to Plains, Plains responded by stating that it\nhad not provided the correct welding procedure to PHMSA. The Notice alleged that Plains\nsubsequently provided a second procedure, Welding Procedure Specification CS-G4265L205, as\nthe procedure used for pipeline construction in the Project. CS-G4265L205 specified a range of\nthree base materials from API 5L X42 through API 5L X65, which encompassed the API 5L\nX42 base material that Plains used to qualify welders for the Project. Procedure CS-G4265L205\nspans three groups of base materials under API Standard 1104, Section 5.4.2.2. The Notice\nalleged that Plains use of procedure CS-G4265L205 raised a new issue under\n49 C.F.R. § 195.214. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains was required to qualify separate\nwelding procedures for each of the three groups of base material encompassed by the range of\nbase materials included in CS-G4265L205.\nIn its Response, Plains contested the allegations in the Notice by offering new factual arguments.\nFirst, Plains offered a third explanation of the welding procedures used in pipeline construction\non the Project. Specifically, Respondent explained that it had not used CS-G4265L205 to\nqualify welders on the Project. Rather, Respondent claimed that it actually used two welding\nprocedures: the initially-claimed CS-G60L203 and another procedure, CS-F52M214, which\nspecified a base material of API 5L X52. Respondent further claimed that CS-G4265L205 “was\na legacy procedure” that “was never used” for the Project. The evidence presented by\nRespondent in response to the Notice is sufficient to indicate that Plains used welding procedures\nCS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214 during construction of the Project.\nHowever, neither CS-G60L203 nor CS-F52M214 encompass API 5L X42 base material. Thus,\nthe documented use of API 5L X42 base material to qualify welders on the Project was, by\ndefinition, outside of the base material range specified by the two welding procedures claimed in\nthe Response.\nSecond, Respondent claimed that welders who performed the welding on the Project were\nactually qualified using API 5L X52 material, not the API 5L X42 base material indicated on\nPlains’ Welder Qualification Records. The only evidence offered in support of Respondent’s\nclaim consisted of an email exchange, dated November 10, 2015, which claimed that Plains “did\n2 The Notice states that Plains initially provided welding procedure CS-G4265L203. However, all other documents\nprovided as a part of the case file, including a copy of the procedure in question, label the procedure as\nCS-G60L203.\n3 Violation Report, at 27.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 4\nnot have any X42 at the yard as we normally purchase X52.”4 However, the Welder\nQualification Records clearly show that API 5L X42 material was used for welder qualification.\nThe email does not provide any proof that API 5L X52 was used at the time welders were\nqualified for the Project; it merely states that Plains “normally purchase[s] X52” material.\nRespondent further alleged that “PHMSA . . . confirmed the grade of pipe used for qualifying\nwelders” in a July 2015 field inspection, during which a PHMSA inspector physically examined\npipe sections allegedly used to qualify welders during for the Project. However, Respondent’s\nassertion about the PHMSA inspector’s alleged observation of API 5L X52 material does not\nprove that API 5L X52 material was actually used to qualify welders for the Project.\nWelding procedure CS-G60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through\nAPI 5L X60, while welding procedure CS-F52M214 specified the use of API 5L X52 material.\nWelders for the Project were qualified using API 5L X42 material, as evidenced by the Welder\nQualification Records for the Project. API 5L X42 material is outside of the range of base\nmaterials specified by procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214. Therefore, Plains’ welders\nperformed qualification tests using a grade of material not specified by the welding procedure, in\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) and API Standard 1104.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified\nwelding procedure.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualifications of welders\nand welding operators.\n(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance\nwith section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel\nCode (BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder\nor welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than an edition listed\nin §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.\nAs cited above in Item 1, API Standard 1104 provides, in relevant part:\n5.4.2.2 Base Material\nA change in base material constitutes an essential variable. When\nwelding materials of two separate material groups, the procedure for the\nhigher strength group shall be used. For the purposes of this standard, all\nmaterials shall be grouped as follows:\na. . . . .\nc. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than\n4 Response, Attachment 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 5\nor equal to 65,000 psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate\nqualification test.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to properly\nqualify welders that performed welding on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that, during the inspection, PHMSA requested the welding\nprocedure used to construct the pipeline in the Project and copies of the welder qualification\nrecords. The Notice alleged that Plains provided Welding Procedure Specification CS-G60L203\nas the welding procedure used to qualify welders during the Project. Welding procedure CS-\nG60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60. The\nNotice alleged that welders for the Project had been qualified using API 5L X42 material, which\nis outside of the range of base materials specified by procedure CS-G60L203. The Welder\nQualification Records5 used to qualify welders, attached as exhibits to the Violation Report,\nshowed the use of “X42” grade pipe. Accordingly, PHMSA alleged that Plains’ welders were\nnot properly qualified because they were not welding to a previously-qualified procedure.\nAs discussed under Item 1 above, Plains initially responded by stating that it had used Welding\nProcedure Specification CS-G4265L205. Subsequently, Plains alleged that it had actually used\nprocedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214. The evidence presented by Respondent in response\nto the Notice is sufficient to indicate that Plains used welding procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-\nF52M214 during construction of the Project.\nAs discussed above, neither CS-G60L203 nor CS-F52M214 include API 5L X42 in their base\nmaterial ranges. Plains offered only unsubstantiated evidence that welders on the Project had\n“actually qualified using X-52 pipe, not X-42.” In opposition to the arguments and allegations in\nthe Response, the Welder Qualification Record contained in the Violation Report clearly\nindicates that API 5L X42 pipe was used to qualify welders on the Project.6\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to qualify each welder on the Project in accordance with API\nStandard 1104.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Respondent has provided additional evidence in its Response, as follows:\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\n5 Violation Report, at 27.\n6 Violation Report, at 27.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5025\nPage 6\nRespondent provided sufficient proof that welding procedure CS-G4265L205 was not\nused in construction-related welding work on Plains’ Jal, New Mexico to Wink,\nTexas pipeline construction project, contrary to the allegations in the Notice\nsuggesting that procedure CS-G4265L205 was used.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance with respect to these violations cannot be achieved by\nimplementing the remedial actions contained in the proposed compliance order, which pertains\nto Respondent’s alleged use of procedure CS-G4265L205. Accordingly, the proposed\ncompliance terms contained in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, 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. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 27, 2016\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":30393}