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

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

Official case documents:

420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Closure%20Letter_09292025_(17-156608S).pdf

420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Closure%20Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf

420195004_Final Order_10062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Final%20Order_10062020.pdf

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Final%20Order_10062020_text.pdf

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01312019.pdf

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01312019_text.pdf

420195004_Operator Response to Notice_05032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195004/420195004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05032019.pdf

420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: chris.chandler@paalp.com
September 29, 2025
Chris R. Chandler
Executive Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77002
RE: CPF 4-2019-5004-NOPV
Dear Mr. Chandler:
On October 6, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains) a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Final Order
included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Pursuant to § 60117, PHMSA
performed inspections of the work required by the Compliance Order in CPF No. 4-2019-5004 on
the Cotton Draw Pipeline, operated by Plains. As a result, on May 17, 2024, PHMSA issued to
Plains a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO or Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR §
190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions existed on Plains’ Cotton Draw Pipeline that posed an
integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. After issuance of the NOPSO, the
parties engaged in good-faith settlement discussions that resulted in the issuance of a Consent
Order on July 8, 2025. An inspection of the corrective measures under the Consent Order for CPF
No. 4-2024-029-NOPSO is ongoing.
Notwithstanding CPF No. 4-2024-029-NOPSO and the corrective measures described in the
Consent Order, based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of
payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of the
Final Order for CPF No. 4-2019-5004.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bryan Lethcoe
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration



cc: Patrick Hodgins, Vice President, Health, Safety, and Environment, NA,
pdhodgins@paalp.com
Ngiabi Gicuhi, Director, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance, ngicuhi@paalp.com
Kevin Cunningham, HSE Regulatory Compliance Programs, khcunningham@paalp.com

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 31, 2019
Dean Gore
Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Plains All-American Pipeline, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2019-5004
Dear Mr. Gore:
On August 7 – 11, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code (U.S.C.) conducted a first operating inspection of the Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains)
Cotton Draw Pipeline in Midland, Texas.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected
and the probable violations are:



1. §195.214 – Welding Procedures
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in accordance
with welding procedures qualified under Section 5, Section 12, or Appendix A of API
Std 1104 or Section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the
qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure
is used.
Plains failed to construct the Cotton Draw Pipeline in accordance with written specifications by
using an unqualified welding procedure. During the PHMSA inspection, Plains provided two
welding procedures, CS-G4265L205 and CS-G4265M211, utilized for the Cotton Draw
Pipeline. The welding procedures were for “API 5L X42 to API 5L X65” and “API 5L X65 to
API 5L X42 and lower yield strength materials,” respectively; however, the Cotton Draw
Pipeline was constructed of API 5L X52 pipe.
The qualification test records provided indicated that the qualification tests were performed on
a completed weld that was constructed of both X42 grade steel and X65 grade steel. Plains
indicated that the procedure was qualified for use on all grades of steel between X42 and X65.
However, API Standard 1104 requires separate procedure qualification tests for any base
material X65 and greater. Consequently, this test did not qualify the procedure for welding X52
material.
In order for Plains to use this procedure, it must have been qualified using API 5L X52 pipe
as the base material, or another material in group (b) that is consistent with Section 5.4.2.2 in
API Standard 1104. These procedures must have destructive testing coupons. Plains did not
have any destructive testing records that showed the procedure was correctly qualified for the
intended use. Inspections of records provided by Plains indicates that these two procedures
were used for nearly every production weld on the Cotton Draw Pipeline, with the exception
of specific tie in welds.
2. §195.222 – Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding
operators
Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6, section
12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX
of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see §195.3),
except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than a edition
listed in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under an earlier edition.
(a) No welder or welding operator may weld with a welding process unless, within the
preceding 6 months, the welder or welding operator has (1) engaged in welding with
that process; and (2) had one weld tested and found acceptable under section 9 or
Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3.
2



Plains failed to ensure that production welds made on the Cotton Draw pipeline were made
by welders who were properly qualified. A review of the welder qualifications indicated that
13 welders performed production welds on the Cotton Draw pipeline and Plains did not have
qualification records to validate that they were qualified to the procedure used. These welders
were identified on the Form 911 as completing production welds, but Plains did not have
welder qualifications to support those welders.
3. §195.430 – Firefighting Equipment
Each Operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station
and breakout tank area. The equipment must be
(a) In proper operating condition at all times
(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear; and
(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.
Plains failed to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment was provided at each pump station
and breakout tank area. Plains O&M Procedure 419 for firefighting equipment requires that all
pump stations and breakout tank areas be equipped with firefighting equipment. Additionally,
Plains Procedure P-195.430 requires that all firefighting equipment be inspected monthly, and
that annual inspections should be conducted by an approved agent of the extinguisher
manufacturer. Plains failed to ensure that monthly and annual inspections were performed.
The Cotton Draw Pipeline originates from an area that is designated as “Section 17.” There is
a pump at this location to initiate the flow from the gathering lines to the Cotton Draw Station,
where another pump is located. During the field inspection at Section 17, no fire extinguishers
were available for use.
The Cotton Draw pipeline terminates at the Stateline Injection Site, where it ties into the
Stateline 20” pipeline. The Stateline Injection Site has pumps on site, and extinguishers
located at the station did not have inspection tags denoting the extinguishers were in proper
operational condition, and could not provide records showing the extinguishers had been
inspected.
4. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of
pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7 ½
months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure
limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control
equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical
condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it is used.
3



Plains failed to install a thermal relief valve (TRV 432), located at Section 29 (MM 1) prior to
th operation of the Cotton Draw Pipeline. During the PHMSA inspection the valve was found
to be locked out and isolated from the mainline.
A review of the overpressure device inspection form (Plains Form 301) indicates that the item
was “not installed” and “removed from field” on April 5, 2017, approximately 5 months after
the startup date of the pipeline. Records indicate that this pipeline was operating without the
valve from startup until it was installed at some time between April 5, 2017 and August 10,
2017 (date of PHMSA inspection).
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a related
series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November
27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum
penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to
exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the
circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $75,600 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
Item 2 $75,600
Warning Items
With respect to item 4 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in
this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment
proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Failure to do so may
result in additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1 and 3, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains All American 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
4



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).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a
hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. 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 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. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you
submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period
may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-5004 and, for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
5



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains All
American Pipeline L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to welding completed with
inadequately qualified welding procedures, Plains must perform destructive testing
on a statistically significant number of girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline to
show that the welds have the required strength and mechanical properties for the
application. The proposed testing plan must include specific designation of the
welds to be tested, the analysis showing that the number of welds to be tested is
statistically significant to the number of total welds made, the procedures that Plains
proposes to be used to cut out and test the welds, and the qualified welding
procedure that will be used to re-weld the pipeline. The proposed testing plan must
be submitted to the PHMSA Southwest Region Director for approval prior to
initiating the plan. If any of these welds fail destructive testing, the number of
welds tested must be expanded as specified by the Southwest Region Director to
include an additional number of welds made by that welder.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, the Operator must modify its procedures
to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment is installed prior to the operation of
any pipeline.
Provide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of Items 1 and 2 of
the Proposed Compliance Order within 30 days following the date of the Final
Order. Submit the documentation showing completion of the testing and weld
repairs within 120 days following approval of the plan by the Southwest Region
Director.
It is requested (not mandated) that Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to the Southwest Region Director, 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.
6

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf

October 6, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: hpefanis@paalp.com
Mr. Harry Pefanis
President
Plains Pipeline, LP
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Dear Mr. Pefanis:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $75,600, 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 electronic mail is effective upon the date of
transmission, 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr., Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance,
Plains Pipeline, LP, dgore@paalp.com
CONFIRMATION OF 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. 4-2019-5004
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August 7 through 11, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plains Pipeline, LP
(Plains or Respondent), in Midland, Texas. Plains owns and operates a network of hazardous
liquid pipeline transportation, terminalling, storage, and gathering assets in the United States and
Canada.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated January 31, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.205 (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Plains had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $75,600 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required
no further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future
enforcement action.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time, Plains responded to the Notice by letter
dated May 3, 2019 (Response). The company contested two of the allegations of violation, and
requested that the proposed compliance order be modified or eliminated and the proposed civil
penalty be reduced or 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:
1 Plains website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/ (last accessed September 28, 2020).



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states:
§ 195.214 Welding procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding
operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,
section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of [American Petroleum Institute
Standard (API Std)] 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or
Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC)
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used
to qualify the welding procedures must be determined by destructive
testing.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by failing to perform
welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under Section 5, Section 12, or
Appendix A or B of API Std 1104. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to construct
its Cotton Draw Pipeline, which was built with API 5L X52 pipe, using qualified welding
procedures under Section 5 of API Std 1104 for this type of pipe.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.2 Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by failing to perform
welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under API Std 1104.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states:
§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders
and welding operators.
(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance
with section 6, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3) except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier
edition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may not requalify under that
earlier edition.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to use qualified
welders during welding activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that production welds on
Plains’ Cotton Draw pipeline were welded by 13 welders who were not properly qualified under API
Std 1104.
In its Response, Plains contested this allegation of violation. It argued that the 13 welders
referenced in the Notice were qualified to perform welds under its procedure CS-G4265L205,
2 In its Response, Plains stated that its “welding procedures CS-G4265M211 and CS-G4265L205 were qualified by
welding API 5L X42 to X65 pipe, and also confirms that these welding procedures were applied to API 5L X52 pipe
for the Cotton Draw Pipeline. Plains recognizes that this is a violation of the base material groupings of API 1104
Section 5.4.2.2.”



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 3
which Plains argued was requalified to demonstrate that it met all the requirements of API Std
1104 to produce acceptable welds with sufficient mechanical properties for “the base material
group consisting of greater than X42 but less than X65 pipe.”3 Plains argued that substitution of
X52 pipe did not result in uncertainty in the welder’s skill or range of qualification since base
material is not an essential variable.4
I disagree. Welders cannot be qualified on an unqualified procedure. API Std 1104 Section 6.1
states that “[t]he purpose of the welder qualification test is to determine the ability of welders to
make sound butt or fillet welds using previously qualified procedures”5 (emphasis added). In its
Response to Item 1, Plains did not contest that it violated § 195.214(a) by failing to perform
welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under API Std 1104. Therefore, since
Plains used unqualified welding procedures during welding activity on X52 pipe on the Cotton
Draw Pipeline, and the welders who performed the work were qualified to that same procedure,
the welders were not qualified pursuant to § 195.222(a). Plains’ assertion that subsequent testing
demonstrated the sufficiency of the welds does not negate the underlying violation. Accordingly,
after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by
failing to use qualified welders during welding activity on its Cotton Draw Pipeline.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states:
§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.
Each operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each
pump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be-
(a) In proper operating condition at all times;
(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear;
and
(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate
firefighting equipment at each pump station. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to
have a fire extinguisher at Section 17 where the Cotton Draw Pipeline originates and a pump is
located. Further, at the line’s termination site where pumps are located, the company also failed
to have fire extinguishers with inspection tags showing that they were in proper operating
condition. Finally, the Notice alleged that Plains could not provide records demonstrating that
the fire extinguishers had been inspected pursuant to the company’s written procedures.6
3 Response, at 4.
4 “Essential variables” are defined as welding variables that have a profound influence on the strength and mechanical
properties of the weld. A welding procedure must be requalified whenever there is an essential variable change.
5 American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,” 20th ed., Oct.
2005, (including errata/addendum (July 2007) and errata 2 (2008)) at Section 6.1.
6 According to the Notice, Plains’ Procedure P-195.430 requires that all firefighting equipment be inspected monthly.



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 4
In its Response, Plains contested this allegation of violation. The company noted that at the time
of the PHMSA inspection, these sites were remote and unstaffed and that “adequate fire
protection was provided by portable handheld fire extinguishers of various sizes dependent on
the type of Plains operations and maintenance vehicle.”7 Plains stated that its staff carried
portable fire extinguishers that could be used to control small, incipient fires in emergencies and
that adequate equipment “was present any time operations and maintenance personnel were on
site.” 8 Finally, the company noted that after the PHMSA inspection, it installed fire
extinguishers at the requisite sites and amended its procedures to require the installation of
adequate firefighting equipment prior to operation.9
I do not find the additional information and explanations provided by Plains to be persuasive.
First, there is no exception to the requirement for maintaining adequate firefighting equipment if
the location is remote or unstaffed. Plains fails to meet its regulatory obligation by providing
firefighting equipment only when its staff is present on site. The regulation requires that
adequate equipment be maintained “at each pump station and breakout tank area,” not in vehicles
or only when company personnel are on site. Second, Plains’ post-inspection remedial measures,
including installing fire extinguishers and amending its procedures, do not mitigate the
underlying violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each
pump station on the Cotton Draw Pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.10 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $75,600 for the violations cited above.
7 Response, at 6.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 5
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.222(a), for failing to use qualified welders during welding activity on its Cotton Draw
Pipeline. In its Response, Plains argued that if this item were not reduced to a warning item,
then the penalty should be reduced for several reasons. First, under Section E4 of the Violation
Report, the company argues that the nature of the non-compliance should be considered a record-
keeping, rather than an “activities,” violation. I disagree. Plains did not simply fail to maintain
necessary records. Instead, the company performed welding activity using unqualified welders.
Second, Plains argued that the duration of the violation under the “gravity” portion of Section E5
of the Violation Report should be amended from “greater than 10 days” to a single day, since
welding qualification takes less than one day and the welds were all sound. This item, however,
does not allege a violation of a one-day qualification testing process. Instead, it involves
welding activities performed by unqualified welders, a non-compliance that persisted for a
period of time longer than 10 days.
Finally, Plains argued that the instances of violation under Section E6 of the Violation Report
should be reduced from 13 to one. However, as noted above, I found that the 13 welders who
performed welding activity on the Cotton Draw Pipeline were not qualified. Therefore, since 13
unqualified welders individually performed welding on the pipeline, the number of instances of
violation is 13. Plains also alleged that the selection for the gravity assessment criteria under
Section E6 should be changed from “the violation occurred in areas that are not in a high
consequence area (HCA) or not in an HCA ‘could affect’ segment” to “the violation occurred;
however, pipeline safety was minimally affected.” I do not believe, however, that pipeline safety
was minimally impacted. Proper welding is critical to the safe operation of a hazardous liquid
pipeline, and must be performed using qualified welders and qualified procedures. Plains failed
to satisfy both requirements. Therefore, I find no compelling reason to lower the gravity
selection.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $75,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $75,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 6
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 3 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.430, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601.
With regard to the violation of § 195.214(a) (Item 1), Respondent argued that the compliance
terms should be withdrawn or modified.11 Specifically, Plains alleged that, despite not using
qualified welding procedures for API 5L X52 pipe, the welds on its Cotton Draw Pipeline have
the required API Std 1104 strength and mechanical properties to “produce a sound and
satisfactory girth weld” for joining the X52 pipe and do not pose a safety hazard.12 Specifically,
Plains explained that in November 2015, it requalified one of the welding procedures utilized
during the Cotton Draw Pipeline construction, CS-G4265L205, using 20-inch diameter by 0.500
wall thickness X60 pipe, to demonstrate that the welding procedure met all requirements of API
Std 1104 to produce acceptable welds with sufficient mechanical properties for the base material
group consisting of greater than X42 but less than X65 pipe.13 Plains then conducted additional
testing using these newly qualified procedures to confirm that the test welds met the criteria in
API Std 1104.14 Further, Plains noted that after the commissioning period, pipeline failure rates
decrease, and girth welds are unlikely to fail unless subjected to severe axial strains from
external loads.15
Plains also argued that removal and destructive testing of “in service” welds, as proposed by the
Director in the Proposed Compliance Order, would be unnecessary, unjustified, and result in a
greater safety threat to people and the environment than the actions already taken by the
company to demonstrate the safety margins of the X52 girth welds.16
In her Region Recommendation, the Director noted that although Plains attempted to requalify
the welding procedure used during construction to demonstrate that the welds on the Cotton
Draw Pipeline met the criteria in API Std 1104, Plains changed an essential variable in its new
welding procedures, which nullifies the testing results. Specifically, Plains changed the range of
11 Plains also argued that Section E3-Proposed Action in the Violation Report should be changed from “Proposed
Compliance Order” to “Warning Item” for Item 1. Response, at 1. In its Response, however, Plains did not contest
this violation and confirmed that it did not use qualified welding procedures on its Cotton Draw Pipeline. Therefore,
I see no reason to reduce Item 1 to a warning item.
12 Response, at 2 and Attachment 1 (CS-G4265L205 qualification procedure).
13 Response, at 2.
14 Id., at Attachment 1.
15 Id.
16 Id.



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 7
speed of travel, an essential variable, in its new procedure.17 Therefore, the Director
recommended that Plains requalify the welding procedure used during original construction in
order to confirm that its welds are safe. I agree. By changing an essential variable, the
requalified test conducted by Plains in November 2015 still does not offer proof that the girth
welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline have the required strength and mechanical properties
necessary for X52 pipe. In order to demonstrate the welds used were qualified, Plains must
requalify the welding procedure per API 1104 using the same essential variables that most likely
approximate those used to construct the Cotton Draw pipeline and replicate those conditions in a
controlled test laboratory setting.
However, I agree with Plains that excavating the existing welds and performing destructive
testing may impose additional, unnecessary risks such as potentially damaging adjacent pipe
segments during excavation. Additionally, destructive testing will require Plains to add two new
girth welds to replace each in-service weld removed for testing. I believe removal and
destructive testing of existing welds should only be done if the qualification of the welding
procedure that replicates the welding process used during original construction fails. In the event
the welding procedure fails qualification, then Plains must destructively test a statistically
significant number of girth welds on the pipeline. Any potential risk associated with excavation
will be outweighed by the safety benefit gained from ensuring that the welds that could not be
adequately qualified in a controlled environment still have sufficient strength to perform well in
the field and do not pose a heightened risk of failure.
With regard to the violation of § 195.430 (Item 3), Respondent argued that the compliance terms
should be withdrawn or modified. Specifically, Plains noted that it had amended its procedures
to require installation of firefighting equipment prior to operation of any new pump station or
breakout facility.18 However, the regulation requires this equipment “at each pump station and
breakout tank area” regardless of the age of the facility.
For the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn and is modified as set forth
below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.214(a) (Item 1), Respondent must utilize project
X52 pipe to qualify a welding procedure utilizing the same essential variables that were
used during the construction of the Cotton Draw pipeline. The materials used to qualify
the welding procedure must include the welding electrodes used during original
construction. The welding procedure must be qualified per API Std 1104 three (3) times
by different welders in a laboratory setting. Plains must submit its proposed qualification
plan to the Director within 30 days after receipt of the Final Order. Once approved by the
Director, Plains must submit documentation showing results of the weld procedure
17 Response, at Attachment 1.
18 Response, at 6.



CPF No. 4-2019-5004
Page 8
qualification tests within five working days of the third test. Further, the Director shall be
notified of the qualification date(s) 10 calendar days in advance in order to give PHMSA
staff the opportunity to attend the testing on site.
If any of the welding procedure tests cannot be destructively qualified in a laboratory
setting per API 1104, Plains must notify the Director in writing. Respondent must then
perform destructive testing on 10 girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline at locations
where external forces may occur (e.g. slopes, road crossings) to show that the welds have
the required strength and mechanical properties for the application. The proposed testing
plan must include specific designation of the welds to be tested, proposed procedures to
cut out and test the welds, and a qualified welding procedure that will be used to re-weld
the pipeline. The testing plan must also include bend and tensile tests as required by API
1104. These welds must be randomly chosen throughout the construction projects
timeline, given the conditions set forth above. Welds selected and test coupon locations
can be chosen based upon radiography to avoid acceptable imperfections in production
girth welds, which may cause erroneous mechanical test results. Results of the weld
location
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 43875