{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165015","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":"2016-04-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.505, 195.571, 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.505,  195.571,  195.573(e). The case was opened on 2016-04-28 and is reported as closed as of 2019-07-10. Proposed civil penalty: $95,000. Assessed civil penalty: $90,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165015_Closure Letter_07102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Closure%20Letter_07102019.pdf\n\n420165015_Closure Letter_07102019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Closure%20Letter_07102019_text.pdf\n\n420165015_Final Order_03072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Final%20Order_03072018.pdf\n\n420165015_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Final%20Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\n420165015_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016.pdf\n\n420165015_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016_text.pdf\n\n420165015_Operator Response to Notice_05312016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05312016.pdf\n\n420165015_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 28, 2016\nMr. Troy Valenzuela\nVP, Environmental Health & Safety\nPlains Pipeline, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2016-5015\nDear Mr. Valenzuela:\nOn February 18, 2014 – August 29, 2014, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode inspected your procedures, records, and pipeline facilities in the States of Louisiana, Illinois,\nOklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed § 195.412(a) of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s)\nare:\n1. § 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each\ncalendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way.\nMethods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate means of\ntraversing the right-of-way.\n\n\n\nBased on ROW conditions observed during the field inspection at the inbound and outbound locations of\nthe Tibbey pump station; operator had not maintained adequate surface conditions on the pipeline ROW.\nThere was high overgrowth vegetation; large trees with canopies overhanging the ROW that obscure the\nsurface conditions adjacent to the pipeline ROW from observation by aerial surveillance. In order to\nperform pipeline surveillance, the right of way must be maintained so that the ROW is clearly visible by\nthe means of surveillance employed. Aerial surveillance is the primary method of pipeline patrolling used\nby Plains. Some areas are overgrown with deep brush and grass that should be cleared to allow visibility\nof pipeline markers.\n2. § 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 71⁄2 months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly.\nValve maintenance records for the Mayson to Ellis (Red River) pipeline indicated that the valve on the\nsouth side of Deep Fork River 10” had not been adequately inspected to verify it was functioning\nproperly. Valve inspection records indicate that the actuator for the valve has not had electricity from\nSeptember 2011 to the present. Electricity to the actuator would allow the valve to be tested and operated\nremotely. However, since actuator is not functioning, the valve has to be tested manually, but test records\nshow “N/A” for the manual operation of the valve.\n3. § 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall\ninclude provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a covered\ntask if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual's\nperformance of a covered task contributed to an accident as defined in Part 195;\n(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual is no\nlonger qualified to perform a covered task;\n(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing those covered\ntasks; and\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the individual's\nqualifications is needed.\n(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that individuals\nperforming covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the tasks in a\nmanner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities; and\n2\n\n\n\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency participating under\n49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the program after the\nAdministrator or state agency has verified that it complies with this section.\nWhile performing the covered task of operating a valve during a PHMSA field inspection of the Plains\nOperator Qualification program, a Plain’s field tech failed to follow the Plains procedure for operating a\nmainline valve as specified in the Plains O&M manual, “Valve Maintenance”, P-195.420. The Plains\nPipeline’s Procedure, P-195.420, Item 9 states:\n“Note: On pipeline in service, the opening and closing of the valves shall be performed only with\nthe coordination and consent of the control center.”\nFrom August 12, 2014 through August 14, 2014, PHMSA conducted a field inspection on the Red River\nPipeline (north) section. On August 13, 2014, PHMSA selected a valve # 15, MP: 156+00, located\nbetween Healdton and Sherman pump station, TX. PHMSA requested field personnel to perform the\ncovered task# 20 (Inspect Mainline Valves) to ensure that the individual performing the covered task has\nthe necessary knowledge and skills as well as the procedural steps described in the O&M Procedure, P-\n195.420. PHMSA observed that the field personnel operated the valve without the coordination and\nconsent of the control center as required by the Plains’ procedures.\n4. § 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or more of the applicable\ncriteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of\nNACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nPlains did not meet the specified cathodic criterion for several points on the Buffalo Pipeline system for at\nleast two sequential annual surveys. Plains specified that the cathodic protection criterion for the points\non the following table was negative 850 mV with cathodic protection applied. NACE SP 0169 specifies\nthat “Voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for\nvalid interpretation of this voltage measurement.” The voltage measurement with consideration of IR\ndrop is the IR free or instant off measurement that Plains made as part of the annual survey. The test\nstations that Plains’ records show did not meet the specified criterion include but are not limited to the\nfollowing:\n2013 Annual Survey 2014 Annual Survey\nNo. Description Structure\nP/S\nInstant Off Structure\nP/S\nInstant Off\n1 Empire Road MP 8.01 -1,038 mV -753 mV -1,018 mV -843 mV\n2 Convict Hill Road MP 9.01 -922 mV -684 mV -909 mV -701 mV\n3 E/W Blacktop MP 32.37 -898 mV -689 mV -875 mV -613 mV\n4 E/W Blacktop MP 35.71 -934 mV -902 mV -956 mV -782 mV\n5 Exposed Pipe MP 1.52 -1,019 mV No Measurement -984 mV -679 mV\n6 Exposed Pipe MP 7.42 -993 mV No Measurement -916 mV -702 mV\n7 New Valve MP 7.59 -1,177 mV No Measurement -1,155 mV -817 mV\n3\n\n\n\n8\n9\nKaty Blacktop MP 30.5\nRailroad Track MP 42.92\n-1,143 mV\n-1,224 mV\nNo Measurement\n-1,183 mV\n-917 mV\n-829 mV\n10\nIndian Trails Road MP 112.74\n-928 mV\nNo Measurement\n12\n11\nAllen Road MP 113.54\n-634 mV\n-943 mV\n-848 mV\n-866 mV\n-707 mV\n-813 mV\n-718 mV\nN/S Blacktop MP 114.24\n-1,029 mV\n-799 mV\n-901 mV\n13\nHilton Road MP 116.43\n-919 mV\n-1,006 mV\n-826 mV\n14\n-939 mV\n-713 mV\n16\n15\nRidge Road MP 134.81\n-636 mV\n-1,001 mV\n-834 mV\nBond to NuStar MP 135.85\nJoiner Road MP 135.25\n-852 mV\n-626 mV\n-669 mV\n-956 mV\n-978 mV\n-792 mV\n-722 mV\n17\n-901 m\n-989 mV\n-697 mV\nReck Road MP 137.59\nWildflower Road MP 140.32\n-1,026 mV\n-851 mV\n-659 mV\n-2497 mV\n-1105 mV\n-719 mV\n-724 mV\n-1,112 mV\n-793 mV\nCreek Exposure MP 11.7*\nBond To Seaway MP 141.87\n-1,108 mV\n-763 mV\n-1,034 mV\n-714 mV\n-1,218 mV\n-1,220 mV\n-777 mV\n-1,280 mV\n-1,354 mV\n-1,181 mV\nCty. Rd. 2675 MP 11.9*\nEnergy Prod. PL MP 12.2*\nSub. Prod. Salt Dome MP 12.4*\n-1,170 mV\n-771 mV\n-1,254 mV\n-1,105 mV\n-899 mV\nLone Star 12\" X-ing MP 14.5*\n-1,022 mV\n-1,034 mV\n-744 mV\n-781mV\n-1,219 mV\n-1,014 mV\n-794 mV\n-865 mV\nCty. Rd. 3859 MP 15.8*\n-1,298 mV\n-711 mV\n-701 mV\n-1,300 mV\n-1,113 mV\n-643 mV\n-824 mV\nSND 6\" X-ing MP 46.5\nCR 1152 MP 8.87\n-1,348 mV\n28\nFM 2653 MP 10.8*\n-918 mV\n-980 mV\n-715 mV\n-625 mV\n-1,058 mV\n-925 mV\n-723 mV\n29\nFence MP 11.9**\n-830 mV\n-1,025 mV\n-781 mV\n-203 mV\n-698 mV\n-525 mV\n31\n30\nCR 4120 MP 15.0\n-1,009 mV\n32\nHopkins CR #4133 MP 16.7\n-904 mV\n-620 mV\n-1,069 mV\n-974 mV\n-767 mV\n-689 mV\nFence MP 24.9\n33\nFM #2376 MP 26.6\n-1,046 mV\n-844 mV\n-872 mV\n-601 mV\n-1,246 mV\n-946 mV\n-848 mV\n34\n35\nCR #4202 MP 26.8\nCR #4310 MP 28.1**\n-983 mV\n-627 mV\n-743 mV\n-1066 mV\n-839 mV\n-882 mV\n-766 mV\n36\n-1,243 mV\nFriendship Rd. MP 75.4\n-925 mV\n-782 mV\n- 754 mV\n-709 mV\n-825 mV\n38\n37\nLone Star X-ing MP 79.3\n-895 mV\n-615 mV\n-954 mV\n-657 mV\nScarbough Road MP 93.1\n-940 mV\n-708 mV\n-908 mV\n-818 mV\n40\n39\nFM #10 MP 94.9\n-900 mV\n-651 mV\n-862 mV\n-936 mV\n-739 mV\n41\nPL Exposed in Creek MP 98.0*\n-924 mV\nLoop 390 MP 29.3\n-1216 ml\n-746 mV\n-603 mV\n-1131 mV\n-746 mV\n42\nLake St. MP 29.7\n-1386 mV\n-795 mV\n-1204 mV\n-717 mV\n-798 mV\n* 2012 structure-to-soil measurement was below specified criterion.\n** 2012 and 2013 structure-to-soil measurements rather than 2013 and 2014.\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper performance each\ndevice in the first column at the frequency stated in the second column.\n4\n\n\n\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier At least six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 1/2 months.\nReverse current switch\nDiode\nInterference bond whose failure would\njeopardize structural protection\nOther interference bond At least once each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months.\nRectifier inspection records indicated that in 2013, Plains failed to check rectifiers at least six times with\nintervals not exceeding 2 ½ months for the Laverne to Stockholm facility (Facility IDs: BU-012 and BU-\n013). The rectifiers were checked only five times in 2013.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$95,000 for item 4.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains Pipeline L.P.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30\ndays of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\n5\n\n\n\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-5015 and for each document you\nsubmit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n6\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains Pipeline, L.P. a Compliance Order incorporating the following\nremedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains Pipeline, L.P. with the pipeline safety\nregulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Plains not maintaining adequate surface\nconditions on the ROW in the vicinity of the Tribbey pump station. Plains must clear all\nvegetation and tree canopies in the ROW inbound and outbound of the Tribbey pump station and\nprovide PHMSA documentation that the work has been completed.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ valve maintenance records\nindicating valve on the south side of Deep Fork River 10-inch had not been adequately inspected\nto verify it was functioning properly according to the Plains procedures. Plains must operate the\nvalve according to its inspection procedures, document the inspection in its valve maintenance\nrecords, and submit to PHMSA the records showing that the inspection has been completed.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ personnel not following company\nprocedures by contacting the operations control center before operating a main line valve during\nan inspection. Plains must re-train personnel involved in inspecting main line valves in the Plains\nprocedures, and verify through supervisory observation and OQ evaluations that they can properly\nperform the covered task. Plains must also submit to PHMSA documentation showing that the\naffected personnel have been re-trained and were able to properly perform the covered task\naccording to the Plains’ procedures.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ cathodic protection not meeting\napplicable criteria at several locations on their pipeline system. Plains must remedy all cathodic\nprotection deficiencies and provide PHMSA documentation showing that the structure-to-soil\nmeasurements meet the specified criterion of -850 mV with consideration of IR drop.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ maintenance records indicating that\nthe rectifiers located at Laverne to Stockholm facility (Facility IDs: BU-012 and BU-013) were inspected\nonly 5 times in 2013, Plains must provide records showing that the rectifiers were functioning properly\nthroughout 2013 and were inspected in 2014 according to the requirements of §195.573.\nPlains shall complete all items within 30 days of receiving the final order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Plains Pipeline L.P. maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M\nSeeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It\nis requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n7\n\n420165015_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\nMarch 7, 2018\nMr. Harry N. Pefanis, President\nPlains Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5015\nDear Mr. Pefanis:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $90,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Plains Pipeline, 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 effective upon the date of\nmailing, as 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. Troy Valenzuela, VP, Environmental Health & Safety, Plains Pipeline, LP, 333\nClay 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPlains Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5015\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn February 18, 2014, and August 29, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the procedures, facilities, and records\nof Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Respondent), in Louisiana, Illinois, Oklahoma, New Mexico,\nand Texas. The Plains pipeline system is composed of 19,200 miles of active crude oil and\nnatural gas liquids pipelines and gathering systems, including 1,790 miles of pipe within the\nSouthwest Region that transport crude oil from offshore and onshore facilities.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 28, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Plains had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $95,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 31, 2016 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas 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. § 195.412(a), which states:\n1 https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do/transportation; Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation\nReport), (Apr. 28, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 2\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to its Red River Pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Respondent performed ROW inspections primarily using aerial\nsurveillance, but based on ROW conditions observed during the PHMSA field inspection at the\ninbound and outbound locations of the Tribbey pump station, Respondent had not maintained\nadequate surface conditions on the pipeline ROW to enable effective aerial surveillance. The\nNotice alleged that there was high overgrowth vegetation and large trees with canopies\noverhanging the ROW that obscured from observation by aerial surveillance the surface\nconditions adjacent to the pipeline ROW.\nIn its Response, Plains contested this alleged violation and argued that the ROW around Tribbey\nStation at the time of the 2014 PHMSA field audit was clear of tree canopy and did not obscure\nthe surface conditions adjacent to Red River Pipeline from observation by aerial surveillance. It\nstated that a Plains district manager for this pipeline and station was present during the 2014\nPHMSA field inspection and explained that a small grove of trees that appeared to be\noverhanging the pipeline southwest of the station did not actually overhang the pipeline ROW\nbecause the pipeline skirted to the west of the grove of trees. Plains then provided an aerial\nphotograph of Tribbey Station dated March 9, 2014, about five months prior to the PHMSA field\ninspection.2 Plains stated that the photograph “clearly shows: (1) red river pipeline alignment,\n(2) no tree canopy over hanging the pipeline, and (3) that the pipeline could be inspected by\naerial surveillance.”3\nAnalysis\nSection 195.412(a) requires each operator to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each\npipeline right-of-way at regular intervals. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying\nor other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way. The purpose of this regulation is to\n“ensure that operators regularly inspect the surface conditions of their pipeline rights-of-way,\nby appropriate means, in order to detect encroachments and various other threats to the integrity\nof their facilities.”4 If an operator cannot view surface conditions using aerial patrols, then flying\nis not a method that achieves compliance with the regulation.\nIn this case, the inspector observed that “[t]here was high overgrowth vegetation; large trees with\ncanopies overhanging the ROW that obscure the surface conditions adjacent to the pipeline\n2 Response, Enclosure 2.\n3 Response, at 1.\n4 In The Matter of Nustar Energy, LP, CPF No. 3-2007-5002, Final Order, at 11 (issued Feb. 5, 2009).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 3\nROW from observation by aerial surveillance.”5 Though Plains stated that the tree canopy did\nnot overhang the pipeline ROW because the pipeline skirted to the west of the small grove of\ntrees, the evidence does not support this statement.\nRespondent used aerial patrols for this ROW as the sole method of inspection, but Respondent’s\nROW in this location was covered in dense overgrowth in both directions, as shown in the\nphotographs attached to the Violation Report.6 The coordinates of the photographs, as well as\nthe location of the mainline valve shown indicates that the photos were taken directly adjacent to\nthe ROW.7 Such overgrowth prevented Respondent from observing surface conditions and\nencroachments to its ROW.8 Therefore, Respondent did not inspect the surface conditions as\nrequired by the regulation.\nWhile Respondent’s aerial photograph provides a helpful view of Tribbey Station and its ROWs,\nthe photograph was taken five months before the inspection. The photograph submitted by\nPlains is an aerial photo taken from Google Maps and is not indicative of the conditions of the\nROW at the time of the inspection.9 The photographs provided in the Violation Report were\nmore current and clearly show that there was overgrowth on the ROW.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its Red River Pipeline\nROW.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to adequately\ninspect each mainline valve to determine that it was functioning properly. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that valve-maintenance records for the Mayson to Ellis (Red River) pipeline\nindicated that the valve on the south side of Deep Fork River had not been adequately inspected\nto verify that it was functioning properly.10 Valve-inspection records indicated that the actuator\nfor the valve had not had electricity from September 2011 to the time of the 2014 PHMSA field\ninspection. Electricity to the actuator allows the valve to be tested and operated remotely. Since\n5 Violation Report, at 4.\n6 Violation Report, at 43-44.\n7 Violation Report, at 43-44.\n8 Nustar, CPF No. 3-2007-5002, at 2.\n9 Region Recommendation (Jan. 12, 2017) (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n10 The Notice referred to this as the 10-inch pipeline.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 4\nthe actuator was not functioning, the valve needed to be tested manually, but test records show\n“Not applicable” for the manual operation of the valve.\nIn its Response, Plains contested this alleged violation on the ground that its employee had\nindeed manually operated the valve, even though the form was improperly completed and did not\nclearly indicate manual operation. Plains stated that immediately following the PHMSA field\ninspection, Plains interviewed the employee responsible for inspecting this valve and found that\nfor the period in question, he had properly inspected the valve and operated it using the actuator\nhand wheel, which is a manual operation. The employee said that he was confused on how this\nunique situation should be reflected on the forms, and he thought checking “unsatisfactory” for\nactuator motor operation would indicate that (1) he had manually operated the valve using the\nactuator hand wheel, and (2) there also was an unsatisfactory condition with the actuator\nelectrical connection, which he had described in another item on the form. Therefore, the\nemployee confirmed he had manually operated this valve during each inspection for the period\naddressed in the Notice. To prevent future inspection-form errors for this unique situation, the\nemployee received instruction on how to properly fill out the form prior to the next scheduled\ninspection, which was completed September 8, 2014.11\nAnalysis\nSection 195.420(b) requires each operator to regularly inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly. In this case, Respondent’s records that were provided to PHMSA\nat the time of the inspection did not show that the valve had been properly operated. By marking\n“NA” for manual operation, the record did not indicate that the valve had been inspected in\ncompliance with the requirements of the regulations and Respondent’s procedures. Plains\nprovided an additional inspection record, but it was created after the OPS inspection had\nidentified the violation. The employee’s statement that he had inspected the valves manually is\nlikewise not supported by evidence in the record.12 Valve inspection records that Respondent\nhad made contemporaneously were insufficient evidence to prove that such testing occurred.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b) by failing to adequately inspect each mainline valve to determine that it was\nfunctioning properly.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505, which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to\n11 Plains provided the properly completed form for the September 8, 2014 inspection of the valve on the south side\nof the Deep Fork River 10-inch as Enclosure 3 to its Response.\n12 Operators must keep records of inspections under §195.404(c).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 5\nperform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is\nqualified;\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual’s performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as\ndefined in Part 195;\n(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;\n(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals\nperforming those covered tasks; and\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual’s qualifications is needed.\n(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure\nthat individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge\nand skills to perform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation\nof pipeline facilities; and\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly\nmodifies the program after the Administrator or state agency has verified\nthat it complies with this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to have and follow a\nwritten qualification program to ensure individuals performing covered tasks are qualified.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that during its 2014 field inspection on the Red River Pipeline\n(north) section, OPS selected valve #15, MP: 156+00, located between Healdton and Sherman\npump station, Texas. OPS requested a Plains field technician to perform the covered task #20\n(Inspect Mainline Valves) to ensure that the individual performing covered task had the\nnecessary skills and knowledge of the procedural steps described in the Plains Operations and\nMaintenance (O&M) Manual procedure, Valve Maintenance, P-195.420 P-195.420). OPS\nobserved that the field personnel operated the valve without the coordination and consent of the\ncontrol center, as required by Plains’ written procedure. That procedure is specified in Item 9 of\nP-195.420, which states: “Note: On pipeline in service, the opening and closing of the valves\nshall be performed only with the coordination and consent of the control center.”\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to have and\nfollow a written qualification program to ensure individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 6\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).13\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to ensure that\ncathodic protection (CP) at several points on the Red River Pipeline14 complied with one or more\nof the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in paragraphs\n6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169, for at least two sequential annual surveys. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Plains indicated it used the CP criterion of -850 mV with CP applied. NACE\nSP 0169 specifies that “Voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte\nboundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.”15 The\nvoltage measurement with consideration of IR drop is the IR free or “instant off” measurement\nthat Plains made as part of the annual survey.16 The Notice alleged that Respondent’s records\nshowed at least 42 test stations that did not meet the specified criterion.\nIn its Response, Plains contested this alleged violation on the ground that it had indeed provided\nadequate CP at each test station listed. It stated that although the -850 mV instant-off criterion\nwas not met for these test stations, OPS failed to evaluate whether the test stations met the\nsecond CP criterion allowed in NACE SP 0169-2007, which is incorporated by reference in 49\nCFR § 195.571. This second CP criterion is a minimum negative polarization voltage (pipe-to-\nsoil) shift of 100 mV (-100 mV criterion). Plains argued that “[T]he -100 mV criterion is\ndetermined by measuring the polarization decay, which is calculated by subtracting the native\nvoltage potential measurement from the instant-off measurement.”17\nThe company provided an excerpt from its O&M Manual that addressed the -100 mV criterion,18\nas well as a table showing the 100 mV criterion measurements for each test station listed in the\nNotice from the 2013 and 2014 CP annual surveys.19 Plains alleged that the table shows that the\n-100 mV criterion for all of the at-issue test stations either was (1) met for both years, or (2)\nbrought under adequate CP within the allowable timeframe. As shown in Enclosure 5 of the\nResponse, the allowable timeframe to correct low pipe-to-soil potentials is prior to completion of\nthe next annual CP survey.20\n13 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 was updated on March 11, 2015. Because the inspection date was before this regulatory\nchange, the previous version of the regulation is quoted here.\n14 The Notice and Violation Report mistakenly indicated that this alleged occurred on the Buffalo Pipeline system,\nrather than the Red River Pipeline. Plains noted the mistake in its Response and provided information relevant to\nthe Red River Pipeline. See Response, at 3.\n15 National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), Standard Practice, Control of External Corrosion on\nUnderground or Submerged Metallic Piping, paragraph 6.2.2.1.1 (2007).\n16 The term “IR drop” refers to the difference between the voltage at the top of the pipe and the voltage at the\nsurface of the earth caused by the electrical resistance of the soil in which the pipeline is buried.\n17 Response, at 3.\n18 Response, Enclosure 5.\n19 Response, Enclosure 6.\n20 Response, Enclosure 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 7\nAnalysis\nSection 195.571 requires pipeline operators to ensure that cathodic protection complies with one\nor more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in\nNACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). One of the criteria described in\nparagraph 6.2 of NACE SP 0169 is as follows:\nA negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the CP applied . . . .\nVoltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary\nmust be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.\nThis is commonly known as the -850 mV “on” criterion. Under this criterion, operators must\nconsider the voltage (IR) drop to accurately determine if cathodic protection meets the standard.\nIf IR drop is not properly considered, cathodic protection may appear to meet the -850 mV\ncriterion when, in fact, it does not. One method of considering IR drop is to measure or calculate\nthe drop by interrupting the current and taking an “instant-off” reading.21\nAnother criterion described in paragraph 6.2 of NACE SP 0169 is as follows:\nA minimum of 100 mV of cathodic polarization between the structure\nsurface and a stable reference electrode contacting the electrolyte.\nThis is commonly known as the -100 mV criterion.\nThe fact that Respondent did not meet the -850 mV criterion is not in dispute. Having reviewed\nthe record, I also find that Respondent failed to meet the -100 mV criterion. NACE 0169-2007,\nSection 6.2.2.1.3 describes this criterion as “[a] minimum of 100mV of cathodic polarization\nbetween the structure surface and a stable reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. The\nformation or decay of polarization can be measured to satisfy this criterion.” In order to meet the\n-100mV criterion, there must be at least 100 mV potential decay from the “Off Cycle” potential\nto the “Depolarized” potential. “Native” potential volts cannot be used when using the -100mV\ncriteria for polarization readings.\nThe table of cathodic protection readings provided by Respondent in Enclosure 6 purports to\nshow that Respondent met the 100mV criterion, however, it only shows the difference between\nthe “Native (volts)” column and the “2013 or 2014 Instant Off” columns. For the “Native\n(volts)” column to truly show a “native” reading or “depolarized” reading, there would need to\nbe readings for each year’s on-off survey. The table does not contain information on the\n“Depolarized” potential as required by NACE 0169-2007, Section 6.2, for each on-off survey\nconducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015. It also gives no indication about when or how the native\nvoltages were measured. Native potential values must be obtained when the pipeline is first\nconstructed and before activation of cathodic protection. These values would not be used in\nestablishing compliance with the 100 mV polarization criteria. As required by Plains’ own\nprocedure, all sources of current, including those from foreign pipelines, must be shut off to\n21 Panhandle Energy, CPF No. 3-2010-1006M, Item 19, 2012 WL 7177132 (Dec. 31, 2012).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5015\nPage 8\nobtain depolarized potential measurements. However, there was no evidence submitted by\nPlains to show that such a procedure was followed.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571 by failing to ensure that cathodic protection at several points on the Red River\nPipeline complied with one or more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for\ncathodic protection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169, for at least two\nsequential annual surveys.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a)…\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the\nsecond column.\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier……………………………… At least six times each\ncalendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 1/2\nmonths.\nReverse current switch\nDiode\nInterference bond whose failure would\njeopardize structural protection\nOther interference bond …………….. At least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to check rectifiers\nat least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not e","truncated":true,"body_characters":52209}