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

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

Official case documents:

420165015_Closure Letter_07102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Closure%20Letter_07102019.pdf

420165015_Closure Letter_07102019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Closure%20Letter_07102019_text.pdf

420165015_Final Order_03072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Final%20Order_03072018.pdf

420165015_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Final%20Order_03072018_text.pdf

420165015_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016.pdf

420165015_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016_text.pdf

420165015_Operator Response to Notice_05312016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165015/420165015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05312016.pdf

420165015_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 28, 2016
Mr. Troy Valenzuela
VP, Environmental Health & Safety
Plains Pipeline, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 4-2016-5015
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:
On February 18, 2014 – August 29, 2014, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States
Code inspected your procedures, records, and pipeline facilities in the States of Louisiana, Illinois,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed § 195.412(a) of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s)
are:
1. § 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each
calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way.
Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate means of
traversing the right-of-way.



Based on ROW conditions observed during the field inspection at the inbound and outbound locations of
the Tibbey pump station; operator had not maintained adequate surface conditions on the pipeline ROW.
There was high overgrowth vegetation; large trees with canopies overhanging the ROW that obscure the
surface conditions adjacent to the pipeline ROW from observation by aerial surveillance. In order to
perform pipeline surveillance, the right of way must be maintained so that the ROW is clearly visible by
the means of surveillance employed. Aerial surveillance is the primary method of pipeline patrolling used
by Plains. Some areas are overgrown with deep brush and grass that should be cleared to allow visibility
of pipeline markers.
2. § 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 71⁄2 months, but at least twice each
calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly.
Valve maintenance records for the Mayson to Ellis (Red River) pipeline indicated that the valve on the
south side of Deep Fork River 10” had not been adequately inspected to verify it was functioning
properly. Valve inspection records indicate that the actuator for the valve has not had electricity from
September 2011 to the present. Electricity to the actuator would allow the valve to be tested and operated
remotely. However, since actuator is not functioning, the valve has to be tested manually, but test records
show “N/A” for the manual operation of the valve.
3. § 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall
include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified;
(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a covered
task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;
(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual's
performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as defined in Part 195;
(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual is no
longer qualified to perform a covered task;
(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing those covered
tasks; and
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the individual's
qualifications is needed.
(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that individuals
performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the tasks in a
manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities; and
2



(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency participating under
49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the program after the
Administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with this section.
While performing the covered task of operating a valve during a PHMSA field inspection of the Plains
Operator Qualification program, a Plain’s field tech failed to follow the Plains procedure for operating a
mainline valve as specified in the Plains O&M manual, “Valve Maintenance”, P-195.420. The Plains
Pipeline’s Procedure, P-195.420, Item 9 states:
“Note: On pipeline in service, the opening and closing of the valves shall be performed only with
the coordination and consent of the control center.”
From August 12, 2014 through August 14, 2014, PHMSA conducted a field inspection on the Red River
Pipeline (north) section. On August 13, 2014, PHMSA selected a valve # 15, MP: 156+00, located
between Healdton and Sherman pump station, TX. PHMSA requested field personnel to perform the
covered task# 20 (Inspect Mainline Valves) to ensure that the individual performing the covered task has
the necessary knowledge and skills as well as the procedural steps described in the O&M Procedure, P-
195.420. PHMSA observed that the field personnel operated the valve without the coordination and
consent of the control center as required by the Plains’ procedures.
4. § 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection?
Cathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or more of the applicable
criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of
NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
Plains did not meet the specified cathodic criterion for several points on the Buffalo Pipeline system for at
least two sequential annual surveys. Plains specified that the cathodic protection criterion for the points
on the following table was negative 850 mV with cathodic protection applied. NACE SP 0169 specifies
that “Voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for
valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.” The voltage measurement with consideration of IR
drop is the IR free or instant off measurement that Plains made as part of the annual survey. The test
stations that Plains’ records show did not meet the specified criterion include but are not limited to the
following:
2013 Annual Survey 2014 Annual Survey
No. Description Structure
P/S
Instant Off Structure
P/S
Instant Off
1 Empire Road MP 8.01 -1,038 mV -753 mV -1,018 mV -843 mV
2 Convict Hill Road MP 9.01 -922 mV -684 mV -909 mV -701 mV
3 E/W Blacktop MP 32.37 -898 mV -689 mV -875 mV -613 mV
4 E/W Blacktop MP 35.71 -934 mV -902 mV -956 mV -782 mV
5 Exposed Pipe MP 1.52 -1,019 mV No Measurement -984 mV -679 mV
6 Exposed Pipe MP 7.42 -993 mV No Measurement -916 mV -702 mV
7 New Valve MP 7.59 -1,177 mV No Measurement -1,155 mV -817 mV
3



8
9
Katy Blacktop MP 30.5
Railroad Track MP 42.92
-1,143 mV
-1,224 mV
No Measurement
-1,183 mV
-917 mV
-829 mV
10
Indian Trails Road MP 112.74
-928 mV
No Measurement
12
11
Allen Road MP 113.54
-634 mV
-943 mV
-848 mV
-866 mV
-707 mV
-813 mV
-718 mV
N/S Blacktop MP 114.24
-1,029 mV
-799 mV
-901 mV
13
Hilton Road MP 116.43
-919 mV
-1,006 mV
-826 mV
14
-939 mV
-713 mV
16
15
Ridge Road MP 134.81
-636 mV
-1,001 mV
-834 mV
Bond to NuStar MP 135.85
Joiner Road MP 135.25
-852 mV
-626 mV
-669 mV
-956 mV
-978 mV
-792 mV
-722 mV
17
-901 m
-989 mV
-697 mV
Reck Road MP 137.59
Wildflower Road MP 140.32
-1,026 mV
-851 mV
-659 mV
-2497 mV
-1105 mV
-719 mV
-724 mV
-1,112 mV
-793 mV
Creek Exposure MP 11.7*
Bond To Seaway MP 141.87
-1,108 mV
-763 mV
-1,034 mV
-714 mV
-1,218 mV
-1,220 mV
-777 mV
-1,280 mV
-1,354 mV
-1,181 mV
Cty. Rd. 2675 MP 11.9*
Energy Prod. PL MP 12.2*
Sub. Prod. Salt Dome MP 12.4*
-1,170 mV
-771 mV
-1,254 mV
-1,105 mV
-899 mV
Lone Star 12" X-ing MP 14.5*
-1,022 mV
-1,034 mV
-744 mV
-781mV
-1,219 mV
-1,014 mV
-794 mV
-865 mV
Cty. Rd. 3859 MP 15.8*
-1,298 mV
-711 mV
-701 mV
-1,300 mV
-1,113 mV
-643 mV
-824 mV
SND 6" X-ing MP 46.5
CR 1152 MP 8.87
-1,348 mV
28
FM 2653 MP 10.8*
-918 mV
-980 mV
-715 mV
-625 mV
-1,058 mV
-925 mV
-723 mV
29
Fence MP 11.9**
-830 mV
-1,025 mV
-781 mV
-203 mV
-698 mV
-525 mV
31
30
CR 4120 MP 15.0
-1,009 mV
32
Hopkins CR #4133 MP 16.7
-904 mV
-620 mV
-1,069 mV
-974 mV
-767 mV
-689 mV
Fence MP 24.9
33
FM #2376 MP 26.6
-1,046 mV
-844 mV
-872 mV
-601 mV
-1,246 mV
-946 mV
-848 mV
34
35
CR #4202 MP 26.8
CR #4310 MP 28.1**
-983 mV
-627 mV
-743 mV
-1066 mV
-839 mV
-882 mV
-766 mV
36
-1,243 mV
Friendship Rd. MP 75.4
-925 mV
-782 mV
- 754 mV
-709 mV
-825 mV
38
37
Lone Star X-ing MP 79.3
-895 mV
-615 mV
-954 mV
-657 mV
Scarbough Road MP 93.1
-940 mV
-708 mV
-908 mV
-818 mV
40
39
FM #10 MP 94.9
-900 mV
-651 mV
-862 mV
-936 mV
-739 mV
41
PL Exposed in Creek MP 98.0*
-924 mV
Loop 390 MP 29.3
-1216 ml
-746 mV
-603 mV
-1131 mV
-746 mV
42
Lake St. MP 29.7
-1386 mV
-795 mV
-1204 mV
-717 mV
-798 mV
* 2012 structure-to-soil measurement was below specified criterion.
** 2012 and 2013 structure-to-soil measurements rather than 2013 and 2014.
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper performance each
device in the first column at the frequency stated in the second column.
4



Device Check frequency
Rectifier At least six times each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 2 1/2 months.
Reverse current switch
Diode
Interference bond whose failure would
jeopardize structural protection
Other interference bond At least once each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months.
Rectifier inspection records indicated that in 2013, Plains failed to check rectifiers at least six times with
intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months for the Laverne to Stockholm facility (Facility IDs: BU-012 and BU-
013). The rectifiers were checked only five times in 2013.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per
violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.
For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.
The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the
above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of
$95,000 for item 4.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains Pipeline L.P.
Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you
submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any
portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with
the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you
believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30
days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
5



Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this
Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-5015 and for each document you
submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
6



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains Pipeline, L.P. a Compliance Order incorporating the following
remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains Pipeline, L.P. with the pipeline safety
regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Plains not maintaining adequate surface
conditions on the ROW in the vicinity of the Tribbey pump station. Plains must clear all
vegetation and tree canopies in the ROW inbound and outbound of the Tribbey pump station and
provide PHMSA documentation that the work has been completed.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ valve maintenance records
indicating valve on the south side of Deep Fork River 10-inch had not been adequately inspected
to verify it was functioning properly according to the Plains procedures. Plains must operate the
valve according to its inspection procedures, document the inspection in its valve maintenance
records, and submit to PHMSA the records showing that the inspection has been completed.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ personnel not following company
procedures by contacting the operations control center before operating a main line valve during
an inspection. Plains must re-train personnel involved in inspecting main line valves in the Plains
procedures, and verify through supervisory observation and OQ evaluations that they can properly
perform the covered task. Plains must also submit to PHMSA documentation showing that the
affected personnel have been re-trained and were able to properly perform the covered task
according to the Plains’ procedures.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ cathodic protection not meeting
applicable criteria at several locations on their pipeline system. Plains must remedy all cathodic
protection deficiencies and provide PHMSA documentation showing that the structure-to-soil
measurements meet the specified criterion of -850 mV with consideration of IR drop.
In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to Plains’ maintenance records indicating that
the rectifiers located at Laverne to Stockholm facility (Facility IDs: BU-012 and BU-013) were inspected
only 5 times in 2013, Plains must provide records showing that the rectifiers were functioning properly
throughout 2013 and were inspected in 2014 according to the requirements of §195.573.
Plains shall complete all items within 30 days of receiving the final order.
It is requested (not mandated) that Plains Pipeline L.P. maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M
Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It
is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
7

420165015_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf

March 7, 2018
Mr. Harry N. Pefanis, President
Plains Pipeline, LP
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Dear Mr. Pefanis:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $90,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by Plains Pipeline, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment
terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of
mailing, as 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. Troy Valenzuela, VP, Environmental Health & Safety, Plains Pipeline, LP, 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. 4-2016-5015
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On February 18, 2014, and August 29, 2014, 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 procedures, facilities, and records
of Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Respondent), in Louisiana, Illinois, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
and Texas. The Plains pipeline system is composed of 19,200 miles of active crude oil and
natural gas liquids pipelines and gathering systems, including 1,790 miles of pipe within the
Southwest Region that transport crude oil from offshore and onshore facilities.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 28, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Plains had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $95,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 31, 2016 (Response). The company
contested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. 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. § 195.412(a), which states:
1 https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do/transportation; Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation
Report), (Apr. 28, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 2
§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable
waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least
26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent
to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,
driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the
surface conditions on or adjacent to its Red River Pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Respondent performed ROW inspections primarily using aerial
surveillance, but based on ROW conditions observed during the PHMSA field inspection at the
inbound and outbound locations of the Tribbey pump station, Respondent had not maintained
adequate surface conditions on the pipeline ROW to enable effective aerial surveillance. The
Notice alleged that there was high overgrowth vegetation and large trees with canopies
overhanging the ROW that obscured from observation by aerial surveillance the surface
conditions adjacent to the pipeline ROW.
In its Response, Plains contested this alleged violation and argued that the ROW around Tribbey
Station at the time of the 2014 PHMSA field audit was clear of tree canopy and did not obscure
the surface conditions adjacent to Red River Pipeline from observation by aerial surveillance. It
stated that a Plains district manager for this pipeline and station was present during the 2014
PHMSA field inspection and explained that a small grove of trees that appeared to be
overhanging the pipeline southwest of the station did not actually overhang the pipeline ROW
because the pipeline skirted to the west of the grove of trees. Plains then provided an aerial
photograph of Tribbey Station dated March 9, 2014, about five months prior to the PHMSA field
inspection.2 Plains stated that the photograph “clearly shows: (1) red river pipeline alignment,
(2) no tree canopy over hanging the pipeline, and (3) that the pipeline could be inspected by
aerial surveillance.”3
Analysis
Section 195.412(a) requires each operator to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each
pipeline right-of-way at regular intervals. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying
or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way. The purpose of this regulation is to
“ensure that operators regularly inspect the surface conditions of their pipeline rights-of-way,
by appropriate means, in order to detect encroachments and various other threats to the integrity
of their facilities.”4 If an operator cannot view surface conditions using aerial patrols, then flying
is not a method that achieves compliance with the regulation.
In this case, the inspector observed that “[t]here was high overgrowth vegetation; large trees with
canopies overhanging the ROW that obscure the surface conditions adjacent to the pipeline
2 Response, Enclosure 2.
3 Response, at 1.
4 In The Matter of Nustar Energy, LP, CPF No. 3-2007-5002, Final Order, at 11 (issued Feb. 5, 2009).



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 3
ROW from observation by aerial surveillance.”5 Though Plains stated that the tree canopy did
not overhang the pipeline ROW because the pipeline skirted to the west of the small grove of
trees, the evidence does not support this statement.
Respondent used aerial patrols for this ROW as the sole method of inspection, but Respondent’s
ROW in this location was covered in dense overgrowth in both directions, as shown in the
photographs attached to the Violation Report.6 The coordinates of the photographs, as well as
the location of the mainline valve shown indicates that the photos were taken directly adjacent to
the ROW.7 Such overgrowth prevented Respondent from observing surface conditions and
encroachments to its ROW.8 Therefore, Respondent did not inspect the surface conditions as
required by the regulation.
While Respondent’s aerial photograph provides a helpful view of Tribbey Station and its ROWs,
the photograph was taken five months before the inspection. The photograph submitted by
Plains is an aerial photo taken from Google Maps and is not indicative of the conditions of the
ROW at the time of the inspection.9 The photographs provided in the Violation Report were
more current and clearly show that there was overgrowth on the ROW.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its Red River Pipeline
ROW.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) …
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that
it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to adequately
inspect each mainline valve to determine that it was functioning properly. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that valve-maintenance records for the Mayson to Ellis (Red River) pipeline
indicated that the valve on the south side of Deep Fork River had not been adequately inspected
to verify that it was functioning properly.10 Valve-inspection records indicated that the actuator
for the valve had not had electricity from September 2011 to the time of the 2014 PHMSA field
inspection. Electricity to the actuator allows the valve to be tested and operated remotely. Since
5 Violation Report, at 4.
6 Violation Report, at 43-44.
7 Violation Report, at 43-44.
8 Nustar, CPF No. 3-2007-5002, at 2.
9 Region Recommendation (Jan. 12, 2017) (on file with PHMSA), at 2.
10 The Notice referred to this as the 10-inch pipeline.



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 4
the actuator was not functioning, the valve needed to be tested manually, but test records show
“Not applicable” for the manual operation of the valve.
In its Response, Plains contested this alleged violation on the ground that its employee had
indeed manually operated the valve, even though the form was improperly completed and did not
clearly indicate manual operation. Plains stated that immediately following the PHMSA field
inspection, Plains interviewed the employee responsible for inspecting this valve and found that
for the period in question, he had properly inspected the valve and operated it using the actuator
hand wheel, which is a manual operation. The employee said that he was confused on how this
unique situation should be reflected on the forms, and he thought checking “unsatisfactory” for
actuator motor operation would indicate that (1) he had manually operated the valve using the
actuator hand wheel, and (2) there also was an unsatisfactory condition with the actuator
electrical connection, which he had described in another item on the form. Therefore, the
employee confirmed he had manually operated this valve during each inspection for the period
addressed in the Notice. To prevent future inspection-form errors for this unique situation, the
employee received instruction on how to properly fill out the form prior to the next scheduled
inspection, which was completed September 8, 2014.11
Analysis
Section 195.420(b) requires each operator to regularly inspect each mainline valve to determine
that it is functioning properly. In this case, Respondent’s records that were provided to PHMSA
at the time of the inspection did not show that the valve had been properly operated. By marking
“NA” for manual operation, the record did not indicate that the valve had been inspected in
compliance with the requirements of the regulations and Respondent’s procedures. Plains
provided an additional inspection record, but it was created after the OPS inspection had
identified the violation. The employee’s statement that he had inspected the valves manually is
likewise not supported by evidence in the record.12 Valve inspection records that Respondent
had made contemporaneously were insufficient evidence to prove that such testing occurred.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b) by failing to adequately inspect each mainline valve to determine that it was
functioning properly.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505, which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified;
(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to
11 Plains provided the properly completed form for the September 8, 2014 inspection of the valve on the south side
of the Deep Fork River 10-inch as Enclosure 3 to its Response.
12 Operators must keep records of inspections under §195.404(c).



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 5
perform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is
qualified;
(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the
individual’s performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as
defined in Part 195;
(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the
individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;
(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals
performing those covered tasks; and
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of
the individual’s qualifications is needed.
(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure
that individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge
and skills to perform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation
of pipeline facilities; and
(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency
participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly
modifies the program after the Administrator or state agency has verified
that it complies with this section.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to have and follow a
written qualification program to ensure individuals performing covered tasks are qualified.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that during its 2014 field inspection on the Red River Pipeline
(north) section, OPS selected valve #15, MP: 156+00, located between Healdton and Sherman
pump station, Texas. OPS requested a Plains field technician to perform the covered task #20
(Inspect Mainline Valves) to ensure that the individual performing covered task had the
necessary skills and knowledge of the procedural steps described in the Plains Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Manual procedure, Valve Maintenance, P-195.420 P-195.420). OPS
observed that the field personnel operated the valve without the coordination and consent of the
control center, as required by Plains’ written procedure. That procedure is specified in Item 9 of
P-195.420, which states: “Note: On pipeline in service, the opening and closing of the valves
shall be performed only with the coordination and consent of the control center.”
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to have and
follow a written qualification program to ensure individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:
§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic
protection?
Cathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or
more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic
protection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 6
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).13
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to ensure that
cathodic protection (CP) at several points on the Red River Pipeline14 complied with one or more
of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in paragraphs
6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169, for at least two sequential annual surveys. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Plains indicated it used the CP criterion of -850 mV with CP applied. NACE
SP 0169 specifies that “Voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte
boundary must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.”15 The
voltage measurement with consideration of IR drop is the IR free or “instant off” measurement
that Plains made as part of the annual survey.16 The Notice alleged that Respondent’s records
showed at least 42 test stations that did not meet the specified criterion.
In its Response, Plains contested this alleged violation on the ground that it had indeed provided
adequate CP at each test station listed. It stated that although the -850 mV instant-off criterion
was not met for these test stations, OPS failed to evaluate whether the test stations met the
second CP criterion allowed in NACE SP 0169-2007, which is incorporated by reference in 49
CFR § 195.571. This second CP criterion is a minimum negative polarization voltage (pipe-to-
soil) shift of 100 mV (-100 mV criterion). Plains argued that “[T]he -100 mV criterion is
determined by measuring the polarization decay, which is calculated by subtracting the native
voltage potential measurement from the instant-off measurement.”17
The company provided an excerpt from its O&M Manual that addressed the -100 mV criterion,18
as well as a table showing the 100 mV criterion measurements for each test station listed in the
Notice from the 2013 and 2014 CP annual surveys.19 Plains alleged that the table shows that the
-100 mV criterion for all of the at-issue test stations either was (1) met for both years, or (2)
brought under adequate CP within the allowable timeframe. As shown in Enclosure 5 of the
Response, the allowable timeframe to correct low pipe-to-soil potentials is prior to completion of
the next annual CP survey.20
13 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 was updated on March 11, 2015. Because the inspection date was before this regulatory
change, the previous version of the regulation is quoted here.
14 The Notice and Violation Report mistakenly indicated that this alleged occurred on the Buffalo Pipeline system,
rather than the Red River Pipeline. Plains noted the mistake in its Response and provided information relevant to
the Red River Pipeline. See Response, at 3.
15 National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), Standard Practice, Control of External Corrosion on
Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping, paragraph 6.2.2.1.1 (2007).
16 The term “IR drop” refers to the difference between the voltage at the top of the pipe and the voltage at the
surface of the earth caused by the electrical resistance of the soil in which the pipeline is buried.
17 Response, at 3.
18 Response, Enclosure 5.
19 Response, Enclosure 6.
20 Response, Enclosure 5.



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 7
Analysis
Section 195.571 requires pipeline operators to ensure that cathodic protection complies with one
or more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in
NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). One of the criteria described in
paragraph 6.2 of NACE SP 0169 is as follows:
A negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the CP applied . . . .
Voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary
must be considered for valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
This is commonly known as the -850 mV “on” criterion. Under this criterion, operators must
consider the voltage (IR) drop to accurately determine if cathodic protection meets the standard.
If IR drop is not properly considered, cathodic protection may appear to meet the -850 mV
criterion when, in fact, it does not. One method of considering IR drop is to measure or calculate
the drop by interrupting the current and taking an “instant-off” reading.21
Another criterion described in paragraph 6.2 of NACE SP 0169 is as follows:
A minimum of 100 mV of cathodic polarization between the structure
surface and a stable reference electrode contacting the electrolyte.
This is commonly known as the -100 mV criterion.
The fact that Respondent did not meet the -850 mV criterion is not in dispute. Having reviewed
the record, I also find that Respondent failed to meet the -100 mV criterion. NACE 0169-2007,
Section 6.2.2.1.3 describes this criterion as “[a] minimum of 100mV of cathodic polarization
between the structure surface and a stable reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. The
formation or decay of polarization can be measured to satisfy this criterion.” In order to meet the
-100mV criterion, there must be at least 100 mV potential decay from the “Off Cycle” potential
to the “Depolarized” potential. “Native” potential volts cannot be used when using the -100mV
criteria for polarization readings.
The table of cathodic protection readings provided by Respondent in Enclosure 6 purports to
show that Respondent met the 100mV criterion, however, it only shows the difference between
the “Native (volts)” column and the “2013 or 2014 Instant Off” columns. For the “Native
(volts)” column to truly show a “native” reading or “depolarized” reading, there would need to
be readings for each year’s on-off survey. The table does not contain information on the
“Depolarized” potential as required by NACE 0169-2007, Section 6.2, for each on-off survey
conducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015. It also gives no indication about when or how the native
voltages were measured. Native potential values must be obtained when the pipeline is first
constructed and before activation of cathodic protection. These values would not be used in
establishing compliance with the 100 mV polarization criteria. As required by Plains’ own
procedure, all sources of current, including those from foreign pipelines, must be shut off to
21 Panhandle Energy, CPF No. 3-2010-1006M, Item 19, 2012 WL 7177132 (Dec. 31, 2012).



CPF No. 4-2016-5015
Page 8
obtain depolarized potential measurements. However, there was no evidence submitted by
Plains to show that such a procedure was followed.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.571 by failing to ensure that cathodic protection at several points on the Red River
Pipeline complied with one or more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for
cathodic protection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169, for at least two
sequential annual surveys.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a)…
(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper
performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the
second column.
Device Check frequency
Rectifier……………………………… At least six times each
calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 2 1/2
months.
Reverse current switch
Diode
Interference bond whose failure would
jeopardize structural protection
Other interference bond …………….. At least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to check rectifiers
at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not e
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 52209