{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420195004","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":"2019-01-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.214, 195.222(a), 195.428(a), 195.430.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420195004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.214,  195.222(a),  195.428(a),  195.430. The case was opened on 2019-01-31 and is reported as closed as of 2025-09-29. Proposed civil penalty: $75,600. Assessed civil penalty: $75,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Closure%20Letter_09292025_(17-156608S).pdf\n\n420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Closure%20Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf\n\n420195004_Final Order_10062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Final%20Order_10062020.pdf\n\n420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Final%20Order_10062020_text.pdf\n\n420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01312019.pdf\n\n420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01312019_text.pdf\n\n420195004_Operator Response to Notice_05032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05032019.pdf\n\n420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: chris.chandler@paalp.com\nSeptember 29, 2025\nChris R. Chandler\nExecutive Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1900\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRE: CPF 4-2019-5004-NOPV\nDear Mr. Chandler:\nOn October 6, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains) a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Final Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Pursuant to § 60117, PHMSA\nperformed inspections of the work required by the Compliance Order in CPF No. 4-2019-5004 on\nthe Cotton Draw Pipeline, operated by Plains. As a result, on May 17, 2024, PHMSA issued to\nPlains a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO or Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR §\n190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions existed on Plains’ Cotton Draw Pipeline that posed an\nintegrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. After issuance of the NOPSO, the\nparties engaged in good-faith settlement discussions that resulted in the issuance of a Consent\nOrder on July 8, 2025. An inspection of the corrective measures under the Consent Order for CPF\nNo. 4-2024-029-NOPSO is ongoing.\nNotwithstanding CPF No. 4-2024-029-NOPSO and the corrective measures described in the\nConsent Order, based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of\npayment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of the\nFinal Order for CPF No. 4-2019-5004.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n\n\ncc: Patrick Hodgins, Vice President, Health, Safety, and Environment, NA,\npdhodgins@paalp.com\nNgiabi Gicuhi, Director, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance, ngicuhi@paalp.com\nKevin Cunningham, HSE Regulatory Compliance Programs, khcunningham@paalp.com\n\n420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 31, 2019\nDean Gore\nVice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance\nPlains All-American Pipeline, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2019-5004\nDear Mr. Gore:\nOn August 7 – 11, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code (U.S.C.) conducted a first operating inspection of the Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains)\nCotton Draw Pipeline in Midland, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §195.214 – Welding Procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in accordance\nwith welding procedures qualified under Section 5, Section 12, or Appendix A of API\nStd 1104 or Section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the\nqualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure\nis used.\nPlains failed to construct the Cotton Draw Pipeline in accordance with written specifications by\nusing an unqualified welding procedure. During the PHMSA inspection, Plains provided two\nwelding procedures, CS-G4265L205 and CS-G4265M211, utilized for the Cotton Draw\nPipeline. The welding procedures were for “API 5L X42 to API 5L X65” and “API 5L X65 to\nAPI 5L X42 and lower yield strength materials,” respectively; however, the Cotton Draw\nPipeline was constructed of API 5L X52 pipe.\nThe qualification test records provided indicated that the qualification tests were performed on\na completed weld that was constructed of both X42 grade steel and X65 grade steel. Plains\nindicated that the procedure was qualified for use on all grades of steel between X42 and X65.\nHowever, API Standard 1104 requires separate procedure qualification tests for any base\nmaterial X65 and greater. Consequently, this test did not qualify the procedure for welding X52\nmaterial.\nIn order for Plains to use this procedure, it must have been qualified using API 5L X52 pipe\nas the base material, or another material in group (b) that is consistent with Section 5.4.2.2 in\nAPI Standard 1104. These procedures must have destructive testing coupons. Plains did not\nhave any destructive testing records that showed the procedure was correctly qualified for the\nintended use. Inspections of records provided by Plains indicates that these two procedures\nwere used for nearly every production weld on the Cotton Draw Pipeline, with the exception\nof specific tie in welds.\n2. §195.222 – Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding\noperators\nEach welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6, section\n12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX\nof ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see §195.3),\nexcept that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than a edition\nlisted in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under an earlier edition.\n(a) No welder or welding operator may weld with a welding process unless, within the\npreceding 6 months, the welder or welding operator has (1) engaged in welding with\nthat process; and (2) had one weld tested and found acceptable under section 9 or\nAppendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3.\n2\n\n\n\nPlains failed to ensure that production welds made on the Cotton Draw pipeline were made\nby welders who were properly qualified. A review of the welder qualifications indicated that\n13 welders performed production welds on the Cotton Draw pipeline and Plains did not have\nqualification records to validate that they were qualified to the procedure used. These welders\nwere identified on the Form 911 as completing production welds, but Plains did not have\nwelder qualifications to support those welders.\n3. §195.430 – Firefighting Equipment\nEach Operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station\nand breakout tank area. The equipment must be\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times\n(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear; and\n(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.\nPlains failed to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment was provided at each pump station\nand breakout tank area. Plains O&M Procedure 419 for firefighting equipment requires that all\npump stations and breakout tank areas be equipped with firefighting equipment. Additionally,\nPlains Procedure P-195.430 requires that all firefighting equipment be inspected monthly, and\nthat annual inspections should be conducted by an approved agent of the extinguisher\nmanufacturer. Plains failed to ensure that monthly and annual inspections were performed.\nThe Cotton Draw Pipeline originates from an area that is designated as “Section 17.” There is\na pump at this location to initiate the flow from the gathering lines to the Cotton Draw Station,\nwhere another pump is located. During the field inspection at Section 17, no fire extinguishers\nwere available for use.\nThe Cotton Draw pipeline terminates at the Stateline Injection Site, where it ties into the\nStateline 20” pipeline. The Stateline Injection Site has pumps on site, and extinguishers\nlocated at the station did not have inspection tags denoting the extinguishers were in proper\noperational condition, and could not provide records showing the extinguishers had been\ninspected.\n4. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of\npipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7 ½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure\nlimiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control\nequipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical\ncondition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is used.\n3\n\n\n\nPlains failed to install a thermal relief valve (TRV 432), located at Section 29 (MM 1) prior to\nth operation of the Cotton Draw Pipeline. During the PHMSA inspection the valve was found\nto be locked out and isolated from the mainline.\nA review of the overpressure device inspection form (Plains Form 301) indicates that the item\nwas “not installed” and “removed from field” on April 5, 2017, approximately 5 months after\nthe startup date of the pipeline. Records indicate that this pipeline was operating without the\nvalve from startup until it was installed at some time between April 5, 2017 and August 10,\n2017 (date of PHMSA inspection).\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November\n27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $75,600 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\nItem 2 $75,600\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 4 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in\nthis case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Failure to do so may\nresult in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 3, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains All American 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\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\n4\n\n\n\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-5004 and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains All\nAmerican Pipeline L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to welding completed with\ninadequately qualified welding procedures, Plains must perform destructive testing\non a statistically significant number of girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline to\nshow that the welds have the required strength and mechanical properties for the\napplication. The proposed testing plan must include specific designation of the\nwelds to be tested, the analysis showing that the number of welds to be tested is\nstatistically significant to the number of total welds made, the procedures that Plains\nproposes to be used to cut out and test the welds, and the qualified welding\nprocedure that will be used to re-weld the pipeline. The proposed testing plan must\nbe submitted to the PHMSA Southwest Region Director for approval prior to\ninitiating the plan. If any of these welds fail destructive testing, the number of\nwelds tested must be expanded as specified by the Southwest Region Director to\ninclude an additional number of welds made by that welder.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, the Operator must modify its procedures\nto ensure that adequate firefighting equipment is installed prior to the operation of\nany pipeline.\nProvide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of Items 1 and 2 of\nthe Proposed Compliance Order within 30 days following the date of the Final\nOrder. Submit the documentation showing completion of the testing and weld\nrepairs within 120 days following approval of the plan by the Southwest Region\nDirector.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to the Southwest Region Director, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n6\n\n420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf\n\nOctober 6, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: hpefanis@paalp.com\nMr. Harry Pefanis\nPresident\nPlains Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-5004\nDear Mr. Pefanis:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $75,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nPlains Pipeline, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms\nare 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 electronic mail is effective upon the date of\ntransmission, 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr., Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance,\nPlains Pipeline, LP, dgore@paalp.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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. 4-2019-5004\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 7 through 11, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plains Pipeline, LP\n(Plains or Respondent), in Midland, Texas. Plains owns and operates a network of hazardous\nliquid pipeline transportation, terminalling, storage, and gathering assets in the United States and\nCanada.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 31, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205 (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nPlains had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $75,600 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required\nno further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time, Plains responded to the Notice by letter\ndated May 3, 2019 (Response). The company contested two of the allegations of violation, and\nrequested that the proposed compliance order be modified or eliminated and the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 Plains website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/ (last accessed September 28, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states:\n§ 195.214 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding\noperator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,\nsection 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of [American Petroleum Institute\nStandard (API Std)] 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or\nSection IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC)\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used\nto qualify the welding procedures must be determined by destructive\ntesting.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by failing to perform\nwelding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under Section 5, Section 12, or\nAppendix A or B of API Std 1104. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to construct\nits Cotton Draw Pipeline, which was built with API 5L X52 pipe, using qualified welding\nprocedures under Section 5 of API Std 1104 for this type of pipe.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.2 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by failing to perform\nwelding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under API Std 1104.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states:\n§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders\nand welding operators.\n(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance\nwith section 6, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler\nand Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 195.3) except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier\nedition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may not requalify under that\nearlier edition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to use qualified\nwelders during welding activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that production welds on\nPlains’ Cotton Draw pipeline were welded by 13 welders who were not properly qualified under API\nStd 1104.\nIn its Response, Plains contested this allegation of violation. It argued that the 13 welders\nreferenced in the Notice were qualified to perform welds under its procedure CS-G4265L205,\n2 In its Response, Plains stated that its “welding procedures CS-G4265M211 and CS-G4265L205 were qualified by\nwelding API 5L X42 to X65 pipe, and also confirms that these welding procedures were applied to API 5L X52 pipe\nfor the Cotton Draw Pipeline. Plains recognizes that this is a violation of the base material groupings of API 1104\nSection 5.4.2.2.”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 3\nwhich Plains argued was requalified to demonstrate that it met all the requirements of API Std\n1104 to produce acceptable welds with sufficient mechanical properties for “the base material\ngroup consisting of greater than X42 but less than X65 pipe.”3 Plains argued that substitution of\nX52 pipe did not result in uncertainty in the welder’s skill or range of qualification since base\nmaterial is not an essential variable.4\nI disagree. Welders cannot be qualified on an unqualified procedure. API Std 1104 Section 6.1\nstates that “[t]he purpose of the welder qualification test is to determine the ability of welders to\nmake sound butt or fillet welds using previously qualified procedures”5 (emphasis added). In its\nResponse to Item 1, Plains did not contest that it violated § 195.214(a) by failing to perform\nwelding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under API Std 1104. Therefore, since\nPlains used unqualified welding procedures during welding activity on X52 pipe on the Cotton\nDraw Pipeline, and the welders who performed the work were qualified to that same procedure,\nthe welders were not qualified pursuant to § 195.222(a). Plains’ assertion that subsequent testing\ndemonstrated the sufficiency of the welds does not negate the underlying violation. Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by\nfailing to use qualified welders during welding activity on its Cotton Draw Pipeline.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states:\n§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be-\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;\n(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear;\nand\n(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate\nfirefighting equipment at each pump station. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to\nhave a fire extinguisher at Section 17 where the Cotton Draw Pipeline originates and a pump is\nlocated. Further, at the line’s termination site where pumps are located, the company also failed\nto have fire extinguishers with inspection tags showing that they were in proper operating\ncondition. Finally, the Notice alleged that Plains could not provide records demonstrating that\nthe fire extinguishers had been inspected pursuant to the company’s written procedures.6\n3 Response, at 4.\n4 “Essential variables” are defined as welding variables that have a profound influence on the strength and mechanical\nproperties of the weld. A welding procedure must be requalified whenever there is an essential variable change.\n5 American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,” 20th ed., Oct.\n2005, (including errata/addendum (July 2007) and errata 2 (2008)) at Section 6.1.\n6 According to the Notice, Plains’ Procedure P-195.430 requires that all firefighting equipment be inspected monthly.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 4\nIn its Response, Plains contested this allegation of violation. The company noted that at the time\nof the PHMSA inspection, these sites were remote and unstaffed and that “adequate fire\nprotection was provided by portable handheld fire extinguishers of various sizes dependent on\nthe type of Plains operations and maintenance vehicle.”7 Plains stated that its staff carried\nportable fire extinguishers that could be used to control small, incipient fires in emergencies and\nthat adequate equipment “was present any time operations and maintenance personnel were on\nsite.” 8 Finally, the company noted that after the PHMSA inspection, it installed fire\nextinguishers at the requisite sites and amended its procedures to require the installation of\nadequate firefighting equipment prior to operation.9\nI do not find the additional information and explanations provided by Plains to be persuasive.\nFirst, there is no exception to the requirement for maintaining adequate firefighting equipment if\nthe location is remote or unstaffed. Plains fails to meet its regulatory obligation by providing\nfirefighting equipment only when its staff is present on site. The regulation requires that\nadequate equipment be maintained “at each pump station and breakout tank area,” not in vehicles\nor only when company personnel are on site. Second, Plains’ post-inspection remedial measures,\nincluding installing fire extinguishers and amending its procedures, do not mitigate the\nunderlying violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station on the Cotton Draw Pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.10 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $75,600 for the violations cited above.\n7 Response, at 6.\n8 Id.\n9 Id.\n10 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 5\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.222(a), for failing to use qualified welders during welding activity on its Cotton Draw\nPipeline. In its Response, Plains argued that if this item were not reduced to a warning item,\nthen the penalty should be reduced for several reasons. First, under Section E4 of the Violation\nReport, the company argues that the nature of the non-compliance should be considered a record-\nkeeping, rather than an “activities,” violation. I disagree. Plains did not simply fail to maintain\nnecessary records. Instead, the company performed welding activity using unqualified welders.\nSecond, Plains argued that the duration of the violation under the “gravity” portion of Section E5\nof the Violation Report should be amended from “greater than 10 days” to a single day, since\nwelding qualification takes less than one day and the welds were all sound. This item, however,\ndoes not allege a violation of a one-day qualification testing process. Instead, it involves\nwelding activities performed by unqualified welders, a non-compliance that persisted for a\nperiod of time longer than 10 days.\nFinally, Plains argued that the instances of violation under Section E6 of the Violation Report\nshould be reduced from 13 to one. However, as noted above, I found that the 13 welders who\nperformed welding activity on the Cotton Draw Pipeline were not qualified. Therefore, since 13\nunqualified welders individually performed welding on the pipeline, the number of instances of\nviolation is 13. Plains also alleged that the selection for the gravity assessment criteria under\nSection E6 should be changed from “the violation occurred in areas that are not in a high\nconsequence area (HCA) or not in an HCA ‘could affect’ segment” to “the violation occurred;\nhowever, pipeline safety was minimally affected.” I do not believe, however, that pipeline safety\nwas minimally impacted. Proper welding is critical to the safe operation of a hazardous liquid\npipeline, and must be performed using qualified welders and qualified procedures. Plains failed\nto satisfy both requirements. Therefore, I find no compelling reason to lower the gravity\nselection.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $75,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $75,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 6\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.430, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.214(a) (Item 1), Respondent argued that the compliance\nterms should be withdrawn or modified.11 Specifically, Plains alleged that, despite not using\nqualified welding procedures for API 5L X52 pipe, the welds on its Cotton Draw Pipeline have\nthe required API Std 1104 strength and mechanical properties to “produce a sound and\nsatisfactory girth weld” for joining the X52 pipe and do not pose a safety hazard.12 Specifically,\nPlains explained that in November 2015, it requalified one of the welding procedures utilized\nduring the Cotton Draw Pipeline construction, CS-G4265L205, using 20-inch diameter by 0.500\nwall thickness X60 pipe, to demonstrate that the welding procedure met all requirements of API\nStd 1104 to produce acceptable welds with sufficient mechanical properties for the base material\ngroup consisting of greater than X42 but less than X65 pipe.13 Plains then conducted additional\ntesting using these newly qualified procedures to confirm that the test welds met the criteria in\nAPI Std 1104.14 Further, Plains noted that after the commissioning period, pipeline failure rates\ndecrease, and girth welds are unlikely to fail unless subjected to severe axial strains from\nexternal loads.15\nPlains also argued that removal and destructive testing of “in service” welds, as proposed by the\nDirector in the Proposed Compliance Order, would be unnecessary, unjustified, and result in a\ngreater safety threat to people and the environment than the actions already taken by the\ncompany to demonstrate the safety margins of the X52 girth welds.16\nIn her Region Recommendation, the Director noted that although Plains attempted to requalify\nthe welding procedure used during construction to demonstrate that the welds on the Cotton\nDraw Pipeline met the criteria in API Std 1104, Plains changed an essential variable in its new\nwelding procedures, which nullifies the testing results. Specifically, Plains changed the range of\n11 Plains also argued that Section E3-Proposed Action in the Violation Report should be changed from “Proposed\nCompliance Order” to “Warning Item” for Item 1. Response, at 1. In its Response, however, Plains did not contest\nthis violation and confirmed that it did not use qualified welding procedures on its Cotton Draw Pipeline. Therefore,\nI see no reason to reduce Item 1 to a warning item.\n12 Response, at 2 and Attachment 1 (CS-G4265L205 qualification procedure).\n13 Response, at 2.\n14 Id., at Attachment 1.\n15 Id.\n16 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 7\nspeed of travel, an essential variable, in its new procedure.17 Therefore, the Director\nrecommended that Plains requalify the welding procedure used during original construction in\norder to confirm that its welds are safe. I agree. By changing an essential variable, the\nrequalified test conducted by Plains in November 2015 still does not offer proof that the girth\nwelds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline have the required strength and mechanical properties\nnecessary for X52 pipe. In order to demonstrate the welds used were qualified, Plains must\nrequalify the welding procedure per API 1104 using the same essential variables that most likely\napproximate those used to construct the Cotton Draw pipeline and replicate those conditions in a\ncontrolled test laboratory setting.\nHowever, I agree with Plains that excavating the existing welds and performing destructive\ntesting may impose additional, unnecessary risks such as potentially damaging adjacent pipe\nsegments during excavation. Additionally, destructive testing will require Plains to add two new\ngirth welds to replace each in-service weld removed for testing. I believe removal and\ndestructive testing of existing welds should only be done if the qualification of the welding\nprocedure that replicates the welding process used during original construction fails. In the event\nthe welding procedure fails qualification, then Plains must destructively test a statistically\nsignificant number of girth welds on the pipeline. Any potential risk associated with excavation\nwill be outweighed by the safety benefit gained from ensuring that the welds that could not be\nadequately qualified in a controlled environment still have sufficient strength to perform well in\nthe field and do not pose a heightened risk of failure.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.430 (Item 3), Respondent argued that the compliance terms\nshould be withdrawn or modified. Specifically, Plains noted that it had amended its procedures\nto require installation of firefighting equipment prior to operation of any new pump station or\nbreakout facility.18 However, the regulation requires this equipment “at each pump station and\nbreakout tank area” regardless of the age of the facility.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn and is modified as set forth\nbelow.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.214(a) (Item 1), Respondent must utilize project\nX52 pipe to qualify a welding procedure utilizing the same essential variables that were\nused during the construction of the Cotton Draw pipeline. The materials used to qualify\nthe welding procedure must include the welding electrodes used during original\nconstruction. The welding procedure must be qualified per API Std 1104 three (3) times\nby different welders in a laboratory setting. Plains must submit its proposed qualification\nplan to the Director within 30 days after receipt of the Final Order. Once approved by the\nDirector, Plains must submit documentation showing results of the weld procedure\n17 Response, at Attachment 1.\n18 Response, at 6.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5004\nPage 8\nqualification tests within five working days of the third test. Further, the Director shall be\nnotified of the qualification date(s) 10 calendar days in advance in order to give PHMSA\nstaff the opportunity to attend the testing on site.\nIf any of the welding procedure tests cannot be destructively qualified in a laboratory\nsetting per API 1104, Plains must notify the Director in writing. Respondent must then\nperform destructive testing on 10 girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline at locations\nwhere external forces may occur (e.g. slopes, road crossings) to show that the welds have\nthe required strength and mechanical properties for the application. The proposed testing\nplan must include specific designation of the welds to be tested, proposed procedures to\ncut out and test the welds, and a qualified welding procedure that will be used to re-weld\nthe pipeline. The testing plan must also include bend and tensile tests as required by API\n1104. These welds must be randomly chosen throughout the construction projects\ntimeline, given the conditions set forth above. Welds selected and test coupon locations\ncan be chosen based upon radiography to avoid acceptable imperfections in production\ngirth welds, which may cause erroneous mechanical test results. Results of the weld\nlocation","truncated":true,"body_characters":43875}