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

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

Official case documents:

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_06302017.pdf

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf

420155025_Final Order_12272016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Final%20Order_12272016.pdf

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Final%20Order_12272016_text.pdf

420155025_NOPV PCO_10292015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20PCO_10292015.pdf

420155025_NOPV PCO_10292015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20PCO_10292015_text.pdf

420155025_Operator Response to Notice_12022015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12022015.pdf

420155025_Petition for Reconsideration_01232017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155025/420155025_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01232017.pdf

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf

June 30, 2017
Mr. Greg Armstrong
Chairman and CEO
Plains All American Pipeline, LP
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Enclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It
grants your Petition for Reconsideration and withdraws both findings of violation contained in
the Final Order. The Final Order did not require any compliance actions or assess a civil
penalty, and therefore this case is now closed. Service of the Decision 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,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Dean Gore, Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002
Mr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental, Health, & Safety
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



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, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5025
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
Between April 2014 and October 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted several on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Plains
All American Pipeline, LP d/b/a Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Petitioner), for Plains’ Jal, New
Mexico, to Wink, Texas pipeline construction project (Project).
As a result of the inspections, on October 29, 2015, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS
(Director), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to
Plains.1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had
violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), and proposed ordering Petitioner to take
certain corrective actions to address these alleged violations. Plains responded to the Notice by
letter dated December 2, 2015 (Response), contesting the Notice’s allegations and requesting that
the Notice be withdrawn. 2 Plains did not request a hearing.
On December 27, 2016, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
proceeding.3 The order found that Plains had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a)
and 195.222(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Final Order also found that Plains had taken action
to satisfy the proposed compliance order. Although no corrective action or civil penalties were
ordered, the Final Order stated that these findings of violation would be considered prior
offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Plains.
1 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), C.P.F. No. 4-2015-5025 (Oct. 29, 2015)
(available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20
&%20PCO_10292015_text.pdf).
2 Plains Response to Notice (Response), (Dec. 2, 2015) (on file with PHMSA).
3 In the Matter of Plains Pipeline, LP, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2015-5025, 2016 WL 8223691 (Dec. 27, 2016)
(Final Order).



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 2
Plains filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order on January 23,
2017, seeking reconsideration of both findings of violation and withdrawal of the Final Order.
Plains attached new evidence to the Petition in support of its arguments, some of which Plains
asserted was inadvertently omitted from its Response. Other evidence was not submitted with its
Response because Plains assumed PHMSA already had the evidence.
Having considered the new evidence submitted, I find that Plains has demonstrated that it did not
violate the regulations as previously determined in the December 27, 2016 Final Order.
Accordingly, for the reasons below, I am granting the Petition for Reconsideration and
withdrawing both findings of violation contained in the Final Order.
Standard of Review
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an
appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is instead an opportunity for
respondents to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that
was not previously available, if the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such
information was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny,
in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request
additional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the respondent
must submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to
issuance of the final order.
Plains presented new evidence in its Petition and asserted that this evidence should be considered
on reconsideration. The Petition states that “documents intended to be included with the
[Response] were inadvertently omitted when . . . submitted.” These documents include purchase
orders, shipping papers, and milltest reports that are central to Petitioner’s assertion that X52
pipe was used for welder qualifications. It is clear from the record that these documents were not
included with the Response, though Attachment 1 to the Response does include two icons that
appear to be failed attachments. I am considering these documents, given their probative value
and the appearance that Petitioner attempted to submit these documents earlier.
Additionally, Plains included in the Petition an affidavit from Plains’ Director of Environmental
and Regulatory Compliance. The affidavit contains several factual statements that were not
previously part of the record. Petitioner states that it “knew that PHMSA already had the
information” contained in the affidavit, particularly that X52 pipe was used, “and as such the
[Response] referred to [PHMSA’s September 22 to September 24, 2014] inspection but did not
provide further documentation.” Petitioner further states that “this information should have been
considered by PHMSA but it is not noted in the NOPV/PCO.” I find that Petitioner has stated a
valid reason why it did not present this information more clearly in its Response and as such I
will consider this information.
I am, therefore, considering the additional arguments and evidence offered by Plains in its
Petition, and turn now to reconsideration of the findings of violations.



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 3
Discussion
A. Qualification of Welding Procedures (49 C.F.R. § 195.214)
Item 1 in the Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states:
§195.214 Welding procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding
operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,
section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see
§195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)
(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the test welds used
to qualify welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing.
The Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds without
having a properly-qualified welding procedure. Specifically, the Final Order found that Plains
used API 5L X42 base material to qualify welders on the Project, and that X42 material was
outside of the base material range specified by the welding procedures used by Plains (CS-
G60L203 and CS-F52M214). As Plains’ welders performed qualification tests using a grade of
material not specified by the welding procedures, the Final Order found that there was a violation
of 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) and API Standard 1104 by failing to have properly-qualified welding
procedures.
Petitioner asserted that several newly-submitted documents confirm that X52 pipe was used
during welder qualification, and that X42 was erroneously transcribed. Assuming that X52 was
used as the base material for qualification, this material would be within the base material range
specified by the welding procedures. Petitioner further asserted that the material used to qualify
individual welders has no impact on whether the welding procedure is itself properly qualified.
For the reasons discussed in more detail below, I find that X52 material was correctly used to
qualify the welders, not X42. In addition, after considering all of the evidence, I find the
material used to qualify the individual welders did not demonstrate the welding procedure itself
was improperly qualified. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner did not violate 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified welding
procedure, as alleged in the Notice and found in the Final Order. This violation is withdrawn.
B. Qualification of Welders (49 C.F.R. § 195.222)
Item 2 in the Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states:
§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualifications of welders
and welding operators.
(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance
with section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 4
or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than an edition listed
in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.4
The Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to properly
qualify welders who performed welding on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104.
Specifically, the Final Order found that Plains qualified welders using API 5L X42 base material,
which was5 not allowed under their provided welding procedure specifications (CS-G60L203
and CS-F52M214). While Plains argued prior to issuance of the Final Order that X52 pipe was
used, and that X42 was erroneously transcribed as the material used, the Final Order determined
that no evidence in the record supported this argument, such as material test reports.
Plains produced new information in the Petition, including the documents that Plains purportedly
intended to attach to the Response. Exhibit 1 of the Petition consists of purchase orders and
milltest reports for the X52 pipe, which was delivered to the testing facility on June 20, 2014,
used to conduct qualifications testing, and used to qualify 35 welders on June 23, 2014. The
Petition also references the retention, by Plains’ contractor Pumpco, of the test fittings used for
welder qualification. Additionally, the Petition included an affidavit from Plains’ Director of
Environmental and Regulatory Compliance regarding a PHMSA inspector’s site visit to
Pumpco’s welder-qualification test site. The affidavit states that Pumpco had “stacked the used
test fittings in with other scrap pipe and steel scrap at the back of their yard.” The test pipe
nipples each had the “welder’s name and unique ID (stencil) . . . marked on each test set,” and a
demonstration was performed of how “each welder could be traced back and matched to a
specific test nipple set.” These exhibits suffice to show that X52 pipe was used for welder
qualification.
After considering all of the evidence, I find that X52 material was used, and that this base
material comports with the provided welding procedure specifications. Accordingly, after
consideration of this argument and reconsideration of the record, including the newly presented
evidence, I find that Petitioner did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to qualify each
welder on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104, as alleged in the Notice and found
in the Final Order. This violation is withdrawn.
RELIEF GRANTED
Based on the new information provided in the Petition, a review of the relevant portions of the
record, and for the reasons stated above, I am granting the Petition for Reconsideration and
withdrawing the findings of violation in the Final Order.
This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
June 30, 2017
_____________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
4 API 1104, Section 6.1, referenced by §195.222(a) above, states “[t]he purpose of the welder qualification test is to
determine the ability of welders to make sound butt or fillet welds using previously qualified procedures.”

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf

December 27, 2016
Mr. Greg Armstrong
Chairman and CEO
Plains Pipeline, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and withdraws the compliance order issued to Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). Therefore,
this case is now 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,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental, Health, & Safety
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



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. 4-2015-5025
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On multiple occasions between April 2014 and October 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains or Respondent) for Plains’ Jal, New Mexico to Wink,
Texas pipeline construction project (Project). Respondent is engaged in the transport and storage
of crude oil and natural gas in the United States and Canada, with more than 19,000 miles of
pipeline and 135 million barrels of storage capacity.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated October 29, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Plains had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214 and 195.222 and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated December 2, 2015 (Response). The company
contested the allegations by offering additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested that the Notice be withdrawn. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has
waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which states, in
relevant part:
1 Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do (last
accessed July 7, 2016).



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 2
§ 195.214 Welding Procedures
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding
operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,
section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see
§195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)
(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the test welds used
to qualify welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing.
API Standard 1104 provides, in relevant part:
5.1 PROCEDURE QUALIFICTION
Before production welding is started, a detailed procedure specification
shall be established and qualified to demonstrate that welds with suitable
mechanical properties (such as strength, ductility, and hardness) and
soundness can be made by the procedure. The quality of the welds shall be
determined by destructive testing. These procedures shall be adhered to
except where a change is specifically authorized by the company, as
provided for in 5.4.
. . . .
5.4.1 General
A welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure
specification and must be completely requalified when any of the essential
variables listed in 5.4.2 are changed. . . .
5.4.2.2 Base Material
A change in base material constitutes an essential variable. When
welding materials of two separate material groups, the procedure for the
higher strength group shall be used. For the purposes of this standard, all
materials shall be grouped as follows:
a. Specified minimum yield strength less than or equal to 42,000 psi
(290 MPa).
b. Specified minimum yield strength greater than 42,000 psi (290 MPa)
but less than 65,000 psi (448 MPa).
c. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than
or equal to 65,000 psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate
qualification test. (Emphasis added).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the
Project without having a properly-qualified welding procedure. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that, during the inspection, PHMSA requested the welding procedure used to construct the
pipeline in the Project and copies of the welder qualification records. The Notice alleged that



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 3
Plains initially provided Welding Procedure Specification CS-G60L2032 as the welding
procedure used in the Project. Welding procedure CS-G60L203 specified a range of base
materials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60. The Notice alleged that welders on the Project
had been qualified using API 5L X42 material, which is outside of the range of base materials
specified by procedure CS-G60L203. The Welder Qualification Records3 for the Project,
attached as exhibits to PHMSA’s Pipeline Violation Safety Report dated October 29, 2015
(Violation Report), showed the use of “X42” grade pipe. Accordingly, PHMSA alleged that
Plains’ welders had performed qualification tests using a grade of material, API 5L X42, that
was not specified by the welding procedure.
After PHMSA identified the above-described issue to Plains, Plains responded by stating that it
had not provided the correct welding procedure to PHMSA. The Notice alleged that Plains
subsequently provided a second procedure, Welding Procedure Specification CS-G4265L205, as
the procedure used for pipeline construction in the Project. CS-G4265L205 specified a range of
three base materials from API 5L X42 through API 5L X65, which encompassed the API 5L
X42 base material that Plains used to qualify welders for the Project. Procedure CS-G4265L205
spans three groups of base materials under API Standard 1104, Section 5.4.2.2. The Notice
alleged that Plains use of procedure CS-G4265L205 raised a new issue under
49 C.F.R. § 195.214. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains was required to qualify separate
welding procedures for each of the three groups of base material encompassed by the range of
base materials included in CS-G4265L205.
In its Response, Plains contested the allegations in the Notice by offering new factual arguments.
First, Plains offered a third explanation of the welding procedures used in pipeline construction
on the Project. Specifically, Respondent explained that it had not used CS-G4265L205 to
qualify welders on the Project. Rather, Respondent claimed that it actually used two welding
procedures: the initially-claimed CS-G60L203 and another procedure, CS-F52M214, which
specified a base material of API 5L X52. Respondent further claimed that CS-G4265L205 “was
a legacy procedure” that “was never used” for the Project. The evidence presented by
Respondent in response to the Notice is sufficient to indicate that Plains used welding procedures
CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214 during construction of the Project.
However, neither CS-G60L203 nor CS-F52M214 encompass API 5L X42 base material. Thus,
the documented use of API 5L X42 base material to qualify welders on the Project was, by
definition, outside of the base material range specified by the two welding procedures claimed in
the Response.
Second, Respondent claimed that welders who performed the welding on the Project were
actually qualified using API 5L X52 material, not the API 5L X42 base material indicated on
Plains’ Welder Qualification Records. The only evidence offered in support of Respondent’s
claim consisted of an email exchange, dated November 10, 2015, which claimed that Plains “did
2 The Notice states that Plains initially provided welding procedure CS-G4265L203. However, all other documents
provided as a part of the case file, including a copy of the procedure in question, label the procedure as
CS-G60L203.
3 Violation Report, at 27.



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 4
not have any X42 at the yard as we normally purchase X52.”4 However, the Welder
Qualification Records clearly show that API 5L X42 material was used for welder qualification.
The email does not provide any proof that API 5L X52 was used at the time welders were
qualified for the Project; it merely states that Plains “normally purchase[s] X52” material.
Respondent further alleged that “PHMSA . . . confirmed the grade of pipe used for qualifying
welders” in a July 2015 field inspection, during which a PHMSA inspector physically examined
pipe sections allegedly used to qualify welders during for the Project. However, Respondent’s
assertion about the PHMSA inspector’s alleged observation of API 5L X52 material does not
prove that API 5L X52 material was actually used to qualify welders for the Project.
Welding procedure CS-G60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through
API 5L X60, while welding procedure CS-F52M214 specified the use of API 5L X52 material.
Welders for the Project were qualified using API 5L X42 material, as evidenced by the Welder
Qualification Records for the Project. API 5L X42 material is outside of the range of base
materials specified by procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214. Therefore, Plains’ welders
performed qualification tests using a grade of material not specified by the welding procedure, in
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) and API Standard 1104.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified
welding procedure.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states in
relevant part:
§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualifications of welders
and welding operators.
(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance
with section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder
or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than an edition listed
in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.
As cited above in Item 1, API Standard 1104 provides, in relevant part:
5.4.2.2 Base Material
A change in base material constitutes an essential variable. When
welding materials of two separate material groups, the procedure for the
higher strength group shall be used. For the purposes of this standard, all
materials shall be grouped as follows:
a. . . . .
c. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than
4 Response, Attachment 1.



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 5
or equal to 65,000 psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate
qualification test.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to properly
qualify welders that performed welding on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during the inspection, PHMSA requested the welding
procedure used to construct the pipeline in the Project and copies of the welder qualification
records. The Notice alleged that Plains provided Welding Procedure Specification CS-G60L203
as the welding procedure used to qualify welders during the Project. Welding procedure CS-
G60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60. The
Notice alleged that welders for the Project had been qualified using API 5L X42 material, which
is outside of the range of base materials specified by procedure CS-G60L203. The Welder
Qualification Records5 used to qualify welders, attached as exhibits to the Violation Report,
showed the use of “X42” grade pipe. Accordingly, PHMSA alleged that Plains’ welders were
not properly qualified because they were not welding to a previously-qualified procedure.
As discussed under Item 1 above, Plains initially responded by stating that it had used Welding
Procedure Specification CS-G4265L205. Subsequently, Plains alleged that it had actually used
procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214. The evidence presented by Respondent in response
to the Notice is sufficient to indicate that Plains used welding procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-
F52M214 during construction of the Project.
As discussed above, neither CS-G60L203 nor CS-F52M214 include API 5L X42 in their base
material ranges. Plains offered only unsubstantiated evidence that welders on the Project had
“actually qualified using X-52 pipe, not X-42.” In opposition to the arguments and allegations in
the Response, the Welder Qualification Record contained in the Violation Report clearly
indicates that API 5L X42 pipe was used to qualify welders on the Project.6
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to qualify each welder on the Project in accordance with API
Standard 1104.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. Respondent has provided additional evidence in its Response, as follows:
COMPLIANCE ORDER
5 Violation Report, at 27.
6 Violation Report, at 27.



CPF No. 4-2015-5025
Page 6
Respondent provided sufficient proof that welding procedure CS-G4265L205 was not
used in construction-related welding work on Plains’ Jal, New Mexico to Wink,
Texas pipeline construction project, contrary to the allegations in the Notice
suggesting that procedure CS-G4265L205 was used.
Accordingly, I find that compliance with respect to these violations cannot be achieved by
implementing the remedial actions contained in the proposed compliance order, which pertains
to Respondent’s alleged use of procedure CS-G4265L205. Accordingly, the proposed
compliance terms contained in the Notice are not included in this Order.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 27, 2016
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 30393