{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520155011H","title":"PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P. — Corrective Action Order","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-05-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED corrective action order.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155011h.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155011h.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155011h","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520155011H","body":"Corrective Action Order involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. The dataset does not identify a cited regulation for this case. The case was opened on 2015-05-21 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-29. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n2-20-CV-02415_SANFRAN 195552 v1 Refugio Complaint ECF 01_03132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/2-20-CV-02415_SANFRAN%20195552%20v1%20Refugio%20Complaint%20ECF%2001_03132020.pdf\n\n2-20-CV-02415_SANFRAN 195558 v1 Refugio-Consent Decree attached to Notice of Lodging ECF 6-1_03132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/2-20-CV-02415_SANFRAN%20195558%20v1%20Refugio-Consent%20Decree%20attached%20to%20Notice%20of%20Lodging%20ECF%206-1_03132020.pdf\n\n2-20-CV-02415_US District Court Central Dist of California Consent Decree_03132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/2-20-CV-02415_US%20District%20Court%20Central%20Dist%20of%20California%20Consent%20Decree_03132020.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amended Corrective Action Order_06032015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Amended%20Corrective%20Action%20Order_06032015.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amended Corrective Action Order_06032015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Amended%20Corrective%20Action%20Order_06032015_text.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amendment No 2 Corrective Action Order_11122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Amendment%20No%202%20Corrective%20Action%20Order_11122015.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amendment No 2 Corrective Action Order_11122015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Amendment%20No%202%20Corrective%20Action%20Order_11122015_text.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amendment No 3 to the Corrective Action Order_061620116.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Amendment%20No%203%20to%20the%20Corrective%20Action%20Order_061620116.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amendment No 3 to the Corrective Action Order_061620116_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Amendment%20No%203%20to%20the%20Corrective%20Action%20Order_061620116_text.pdf\n\n520155011H_Closure Letter_10292020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Closure%20Letter_10292020.pdf\n\n520155011H_Closure Letter_10292020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Closure%20Letter_10292020_text.pdf\n\n520155011H_Corrective Action Order_05212015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Corrective%20Action%20Order_05212015.pdf\n\n520155011H_Corrective Action Order_05212015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155011H/520155011H_Corrective%20Action%20Order_05212015_text.pdf\n\n520155011H_Amendment No 2 Corrective Action Order_11122015_text.pdf\n\nNovember 12, 2015\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND FAX TO: 713-646-4378\nMr. Troy Valenzuela\nVice President EHS\nPlains Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2015-5011H\nDear Mr. Valenzuela:\nEnclosed is Amendment No. 2 to the Corrective Action Order issued in the above-referenced\ncase on May 21, 2015. It requires Plains Pipeline, LP, to take additional corrective actions with\nrespect to Line 903 of its pipeline system. Service is being made by certified mail and facsimile.\nService of the Amendment to the Corrective Action Order by electronic transmission is deemed\ncomplete upon transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5. The terms and conditions of this Order are effective upon completion of service.\nThank you for your continued cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nDirector, Western Region, OPS\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. 5-2015-5011H\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nAMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDER\nPurpose and Background:\nOn May 21, 2015, the Associate Administrator issued a Corrective Action Order (CAO) under\nthe authority of 49 U.S.C. Section 60112 to require Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains or Respondent),\nto take certain corrective actions to protect the public, property, and the environment from\npotential hazards associated with Line 901 (Affected Pipeline) in Santa Barbara County,\nCalifornia. The CAO was issued in response to a May 19, 2015 failure on the Affected Pipeline\nthat caused a release of approximately 2500 barrels of heavy crude oil (Failure). On June 3,\n2015, the Associate Administrator issued Amendment No. 1 to the CAO, which requires Plains\nto take certain additional corrective actions on Line 901 and Line 903. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), initiated an investigation of the accident.\nAdditional Findings:\n• Line 903 is a 30-inch diameter pipeline approximately 129.5 miles in length and is\ncomposed of three segments: Gaviota Station to Sisquoc Station (38.5 miles long);\nSisquoc Pump Station to Pentland Station (76.1 miles long); and Pentland Station to\nEmidio Station (14.9 miles long). Line 903 crosses Santa Barbara County, San Luis\nObispo County, and Kern County, California. Amendment No. 1 requires that the\noperating pressure of Line 903 not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the highest pressure\nsustained for a continuous 8-hour period between April 19, 2015, and May 19, 2015. The\nPentland to Emidio segment is currently operating intermittently at low pressures in\naccordance with requirements of Amendment No. 1. The remaining portions of Line 903\nare currently idled but are still full of crude oil.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5011H\nPage 2\n• PHMSA’s independent review of in-line inspection (ILI) tool surveys for Line 901 and\n903 over the past 10 years found that anomalies were “under-called” in areas of general\ncorrosion. Direct field examination and measurements of the anomalies revealed that the\nactual length and width of the anomalies were greater than the measurements predicted\nby the ILI tool. Specifically, on Line 901, direct measurement of the metal loss anomaly\nat the failure site and other anomalies excavated in 2015 showed that these anomalies\nwere generally more significant than the ILI results indicated they would be.\n• Common practice in the pipeline industry is to provide the ILI vendor with field data\nfrom direct investigation of anomalies to validate the ILI tool’s detection capabilities and\nlimitations, the accuracy with which it can locate and size anomalies, and the confidence\nassociated with the tool’s measurements. After excavating, investigating, characterizing,\nand measuring anomalies from the results of various ILI surveys, Plains did not share its\nactual field findings with the ILI vendor so that it could enhance its interpretation of the\nILI data.\n• PHMSA’s independent review of ILI surveys from the past 10 years show that Line 903,\nparticularly the Gaviota to Sisquoc segment, has similar corrosion characteristics as Line\n901 and a number of the anomalies had characteristics consistent with the failure site.\nSpecifically, Line 903 has both localized and larger or “general” areas of external\ncorrosion.\n• Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas (Freeport) operates a 37-mile pipeline system from its\nHidalgo, Hermosa and Harvest offshore platforms in the Point Arguello Offshore Field\nthat feeds into Plains’ Line 903 at Gaviota Station. Freeport shut down this pipeline\nsystem on May 30, 2015, because Line 903 had ceased operation on May 28, 2015.\n• Line 903 between Gaviota and Pentland Station is currently filled with raw, unprocessed\ncrude oil from Freeport’s offshore platforms. This unprocessed crude may contain water,\nnatural gas, and other impurities that contribute to internal corrosion. According to\nFreeport, the biocide and rust inhibitor in this crude oil will begin to lose effectiveness\naround November 2015, adding to the risk of accelerated internal corrosion on Line 903.\n• Due to the number of corrosion-caused anomalies identified on Line 903 in past ILI\nsurveys, particularly on the Gaviota to Sisquoc segment, it does not appear that Plains has\nan effective corrosion control program and the pipe can be expected to have degraded\n(lost metal due to corrosion) since the last ILI survey. Furthermore, leaving crude oil in\nLine 903 is likely to result in an increased potential for internal corrosion as the inhibitor\nloses its effectiveness. The crude oil in Line 903 needs to be removed from the pipeline\nand the line purged with an inert gas in order to prevent further degradation of the\npipeline, and eliminate the potential harm it poses from an unintended release.\n• Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) or environmentally-assisted cracking can be induced on\na pipeline from the combined influence of tensile stress and a corrosive medium. As\nnoted in PHMSA’s Advisory Bulletin ADB-03-05 (issued October 7, 2003), SCC is\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5011H\nPage 3\ncommonly associated with disbonded coatings. Disbonded coatings may prevent the\ncathodic protection current used for corrosion control from reaching the pipe surface and\nallow an SCC-susceptible environment to form between the pipe and coating. Tape\ncoatings and shrink wrap sleeves are both coatings susceptible to disbondment and may\nlead to corrosion and possibly environmentally assisted cracking or SCC. Line 903 has\nshrink wrap sleeves on the girth welds, which could contribute to SCC.\nDetermination of Necessity for Amendment to the Corrective Action Order and Right to\nHearing:\nSection 60112 of Title 49, United States Code, provides for the issuance of a Corrective Action\nOrder, after reasonable notice and the opportunity for a hearing, requiring corrective action,\nwhich may include the suspended or restricted use of a pipeline facility, physical inspection,\ntesting, repair, replacement, or other action, as appropriate. The basis for making the\ndetermination that a pipeline facility is or would be hazardous, requiring corrective action, is set\nforth both in the above-referenced statute and 49 C.F.R. § 190.233, a copy of which is enclosed.\nSection 60112 and the regulations promulgated thereunder provide for the issuance of a\nCorrective Action Order, without prior notice and opportunity for hearing, upon a finding that\nfailure to issue the Order expeditiously would result in the likelihood of serious harm to life,\nproperty, or the environment. In such cases, an opportunity for a hearing and expedited review\nwill be provided as soon as practicable after the issuance of the Order.\nAfter evaluating the preliminary findings in the CAO and Amendment No. 1 and the foregoing\nadditional preliminary findings of fact, I find that continued operation of Line 901 and Line 903\nwithout corrective measures is or would be hazardous to life, property, or the environment.\nAdditionally, having considered the uncertainties as to the cause of the Failure, the location of\nthe Failure, the similarities between the characteristics of the Affected Pipeline and Line 903, the\nmaterial being transported, and the proximity of the pipelines to the Pacific Ocean and\nenvironmentally sensitive areas, I find that a failure to issue this Order expeditiously to require\nimmediate corrective action would result in the likelihood of serious harm to life, property, or the\nenvironment.\nAccordingly, this Amendment to the Corrective Action Order mandating immediate corrective\naction is issued without prior notice and opportunity for a hearing. The terms and conditions of\nthis Order are effective upon receipt.\nThe actions required by this Amendment No. 2 to the Corrective Action Order are in\naddition to the requirements that apply to Respondent’s Affected Pipeline under the CAO\nissued on May 21, 2015, and Amendment No. 1 issued on June 3, 2015.\nWithin 10 days of receipt of this Amendment, Respondent may contest its issuance and obtain\nexpedited review either by answering in writing or requesting a hearing under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.211, to be held as soon as practicable under the terms of such regulation, by notifying the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in writing, with a copy to the Director, Western\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5011H\nPage 4\nRegion, OPS (Director). If Respondent requests a hearing, it will be held telephonically or in-\nperson in Lakewood, Colorado, or Washington, D.C.\nAfter receiving and analyzing additional data in the course of this investigation, PHMSA may\nidentify other corrective measures that need to be taken on the Affected Pipeline or Plains’ Line\n903. In that event, PHMSA will notify Respondent of any additional measures that are required\nand another Amendment Order will be issued, if necessary. To the extent consistent with safety,\nRespondent will be afforded notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the imposition of\nany additional corrective measures.\nRequired Corrective Actions:\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60112, I hereby order Plains to immediately take the following\ncorrective actions with respect to Line 903:\n1. Empty and Purge Line 903: Plains must empty and purge Line 903 between Gaviota and\nPentland Stations and fill it with an inert gas.\na. Plains must submit a purge plan to the Director for review and approval within 15\ndays after receipt of this Order and prior to initiating purge activities.\nb. The purge plan must include the following:\ni. Identification and remediation of any anomalies with characteristics similar to\nthe Line 901 failure location. During the investigation of each anomaly\nlocation, Plains must collect all appropriate data regarding the anomaly depth,\nlength, width, and physical characteristics, including sampling of any\ncorrosion by-products of any anomaly excavated.\nPlains must provide the vendor who performed previous ILI tool runs and\nanalysis from 2012 to the present with the field measured data and request that\nthe ILI vendor use the field data to re-evaluate the ILI results in order to\nidentify any additional anomalies that must be remediated per § 195.452(h) or\nthat have characteristics similar to the Line 901 failure location. Plains must\nprovide a list of additional identified anomalies to the Director prior to\ncommencing the purge.\nA step-by-step plan of how the purge will be executed, including operating\npressures and implementation schedule.\nA list of enhanced preventive and mitigative measures that Plains will\nimplement to monitor the pipeline during the purge activity, including, but not\nlimited to, increased patrols of the pipeline right-of-way with attention to\nnearby drainages, culverts, and highly populated areas, pressure monitoring,\nand emergency response personnel’s ability to respond in a reasonable\ntimeframe.\nPurging operations must commence during early daylight hours.\nTraining of personnel on the local operation of Line 903 during the purge,\nincluding coordination of the Midland Control Room and training of\npersonnel on emergency response procedures.\nii. iii. iv. v. vi.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5011H\nPage 5\nc. Plains must notify the Director and local and state responders 5 business days prior to\ncommencing the purging operations.\n2. Shutdown: After purging Line 903, Plains must not operate Line 903 between Gaviota and\nPentland stations until authorized to do so by the Director. The Pentland to Emidio segment\nof Line 903 may continue to operate under the 80% pressure restriction requirement of\nAmendment No. 1.\n3. Plains must provide the Director with 5 business days’ notice prior to commencing any\ninvestigation and remediation of anomalies (i.e., digs and repairs) and ILI tool runs.\n4. Plains must use a third-party American Society of Non-Destructive Testing (ASNT) Level III\ncertified contractor to complete a non-destructive testing analysis at the specific location of\neach ILI feature or anomaly that requires investigation and remediation under the\nrequirements of the CAO, Amendment No. 1, and this Amendment No. 2. If the ILI feature\nor anomaly is at a girth weld with shrink sleeves, the contractor must perform a magnetic\nparticle inspection of the weld area or use other appropriate technology to check for stress\ncorrosion cracking (SCC).\n5. The Corrective Action Order Documentation Report required by Item 12 of the CAO must\ninclude a summary of all inspections, assessments, evaluations, and analysis required by this\nAmendment No. 2 to the CAO.\nThe actions required by this Amendment No. 2 to the Corrective Action Order are in addition to\nand do not waive any requirements that apply to Respondent’s pipeline system under the CAO,\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, under any other order issued to Respondent under authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60101, et seq., or under any other provision of Federal or State law.\nRespondent may appeal any decision of the Director to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety. Decisions of the Associate Administrator shall be final.\nBe advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties and in referral to\nthe Attorney General for appropriate relief in United States District Court pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60120.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF No. 5-2015-5011H and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5011H\nPage 6\nThe terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 2 to the Corrective Action Order are effective\nupon receipt.\n__________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520155011H_Closure Letter_10292020_text.pdf\n\nVIA E-MAIL TO MR. PATRICK HODGINS\nOctober 29, 2020\nMr. Patrick D. Hodgins\nVP Health, Safety & Environmental\nPlains All American\n333 Clay Street\nSuite 1600\nHouston Texas 77002\nRE: CPF 5-2015-5011H and its amendments\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Hodgins:\nOn May 21, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Plains\nPipeline, LP a Corrective Action Order (CAO), and three subsequent amendments, in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a requirement to take corrective actions on your pipeline. On\nOctober 14, 2020, the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered an Order\nto Enter Consent Decree in the case of United States of America et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline,\nL.P. et al. Upon entry, the Consent Decree (CD) closed the CAO and its amendments. Para. 25 of CD.\nAppendix D of the CD transferred all outstanding corrective actions in PHMSA’s closed CAO, and\namendments, to the sole regulatory oversight of the California Department of Forestry and Fire\nProtection’s - Office of the State Fire Marshal.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed with PHMSA. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nJames Hosler (james.hosler@fire.ca.gov), Assistant Deputy Director, Pipeline Safety Division,\nOffice of the State Fire Marshal\n\n2-20-CV-02415_SANFRAN 195558 v1 Refugio-Consent Decree attached to Notice of Lodging ECF 6-1_03132020.pdf\n\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 102 Page ID #:94\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\nSenior Attorney\n6\nTrial Attorney\n7\n8\n9\n10\nTel: (202) 514-1707\n11\n12\n13\n14\n28\nAssistant Attorney General\nEnvironment and Natural Resources Division\nUnited States Department of Justice\nWashington, D.C. 20530\nBRADLEY R. O’BRIEN (CA Bar Number: 189425)\nANGELA MO (CA Bar Number: 262113)\nEnvironmental Enforcement Section\nUnited States Department of Justice\n301 Howard Street, Suite 1050\nSan Francisco, California 94105\nTel: (415) 744-6484;\nE-mail: brad.obrien@usdoj.gov\nE-mail: angela.mo@usdoj.gov\nCounsel for Plaintiff United States of America\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the PEOPLE\n15\nOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.\nDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,\n16\nPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.\n17\nCENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY\nCONTROL BOARD, ex rel. CALIFORNIA\n18\nDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, ex\n19\nrel. CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION,\nex rel. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF\n20\nFORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION’S OFFICE\nOF STATE FIRE MARSHAL, and THE REGENTS\n21\nOF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,\n22\nPlaintiffs,\n23\n24\n25\nPLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P. and\nPLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.,\n26\nDefendants.\n27\nCivil Action No.\n2:20-cv-02415\nCONSENT DECREE\nv.\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 102 Page ID #:95\nXAVIER BECERRA\nAttorney General of California\nERIC M. KATZ\nSupervising Deputy Attorney General\nMICHAEL ZARRO (CA Bar Number: 110171)\nJESSICA BARCLAY-STROBEL (CA Bar Number: 280361)\nDeputy Attorneys General\n300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702\nLos Angeles, California 90013\nTel: (213) 269-6635\nE-mail: Jessica.BarclayStrobel@doj.ca.gov\nCounsel for Plaintiffs California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Coast\nRegional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Forestry\nand Fire Protection’s Office of State Fire Marshal\nXAVIER BECERRA\nAttorney General of California\nCHRISTINA BULL ARNDT\nSupervising Deputy Attorney General\nNICOLE RINKE (CA Bar Number: 257510)\nMITCHELL E. RISHE (CA Bar Number: 193503)\nDeputy Attorney General\n300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702\nLos Angeles, California 90013\nTel: (213) 269-6394\nE-mail: Mitchell.Rishe@doj.ca.gov\nCounsel for Plaintiffs California Department of Parks and Recreation and\nCalifornia State Lands Commission\nMARGARET WU (CA Bar Number: 116588)\nDeputy General Counsel\nBARTON LOUNSBURY (CA Bar Number: 253895)\nSenior Counsel\nUniversity of California\nOffice of the General Counsel\n1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor\nOakland, California 94607-5200\nTel: (510) 987-9800\nE-mail: barton.lounsbury@ucop.edu\nCounsel for Plaintiff The Regents of the University of California\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 102 Page ID #:96\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nI. BACKGROUND ................................................................................... - 5 -\nII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................ - 6 -\nIII. APPLICABILITY ................................................................................. - 7 -\nIV. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... - 7 -\nV. CIVIL PENALTIES ............................................................................ - 13 -\nVI. NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES ............................................... - 17 -\nVII. TRUSTEES’ MANAGEMENT AND APPLICABILITY\nOF JOINT NRD FUNDS ............................................................... - 21 -\nVIII. TRUSTEES’ MANAGEMENT OF RECREATIONAL\nUSE FUNDS .................................................................................. - 22 -\nIX. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....................................................................... - 23 -\nX. CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDER ..................................................... - 27 -\nXI. STIPULATED PENALTIES .............................................................. - 27 -\nXII. FORCE MAJEURE ............................................................................. - 35 -\nXIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION .................................................................. - 37 -\nXIV. REPORTING ....................................................................................... - 39 -\nXV. CERTIFICATION ............................................................................... - 40 -\nXVI. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ...................... - 40 -\nXVII. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ........... - 43 -\nXVIII. TRANSFER AND ACQUISITION OF ASSETS .............................. - 49 -\nXIX. COSTS ................................................................................................. - 50 -\nXX. NOTICES ............................................................................................ - 51 -\nXXI. EFFECTIVE DATE ............................................................................ - 54 -\nXXII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION .................................................... - 54 -\nXXIII. MODIFICATION ................................................................................ - 54 -\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- i -\n\n\n\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 102 Page ID #:97\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nXXIV. TERMINATION ................................................................................. - 55 -\nXXV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................ - 56 -\nXXVI. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ................................................................. - 56 -\nXXVII. INTEGRATION .................................................................................. - 57 -\nXXVIII. FINAL JUDGMENT ........................................................................... - 57 -\nXXIX. 26 U.S.C. SECTION 162(f)(2)(A)(ii) IDENTIFICATION ................ - 57 -\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- ii -\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 102 Page ID #:98\nA. WHEREAS, on or about May 19, 2015, a hazardous liquid pipeline\nknown as the Line 901 pipeline (“Line 901”) owned and operated by Plains\nPipeline, L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.,\n(jointly, “Plains” or “Defendants”), failed and discharged approximately 2,934\nbarrels of heavy crude-oil (“Refugio Incident”) in Santa Barbara County,\nCalifornia. A portion of the oil reached the Pacific Ocean and coastal areas such\nas Refugio State Beach. The Refugio Incident adversely impacted Natural\nResources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or\notherwise controlled by the United States and the State of California\n(“California” or the “State”).\nB. WHEREAS, cleanup actions began immediately after the Refugio\nIncident at the direction of a Unified Command established by the United States\nCoast Guard (“USCG”) and the State of California Department of Fish and\nWildlife (“CDFW”), Office of Spill Prevention and Response (“OSPR”). The\nUnified Command was comprised of the United States, State agencies, the\nCounty of Santa Barbara, and Plains.\nC. WHEREAS, on May 21, 2015, the United States Department of\nTransportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(“PHMSA”) issued Plains a Corrective Action Order (“Original CAO”), CPF No.\n5-2015-5011H, which was subsequently amended on June 3, 2015 (“CAO\nAmendment No. 1”), November 12, 2015 (“CAO Amendment No. 2”), and June\n16, 2016 (“CAO Amendment No. 3”), (collectively, “the PHMSA CAO”). The\nPHMSA CAO directed Plains, among other things, to purge Line 901 and a\nportion of the adjoining Line 903 pipeline (“Line 903”), between Plains’ Gaviota\nand Pentland pump stations, and to keep Line 901 and the purged sections of\nLine 903 shut down until the actions required by the PHMSA CAO were\nsatisfactorily completed.\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- 1 -\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 102 Page ID #:99\nD. WHEREAS, on May 19, 2016, PHMSA issued a Failure\nInvestigation Report, which included PHMSA’s findings of the “proximate or\ndirect” causes and the “contributing” causes of the Refugio Incident.\nE. WHEREAS, Defendants reimbursed Plaintiffs’ costs incurred for\ncleanup, and Plaintiffs have no known unreimbursed claims for cleanup costs\narising from the Refugio Incident.\nF. WHEREAS, CDFW incurred certain additional costs arising from\nthe administration and civil enforcement of pollution laws, including attorneys’\nfees that have been reimbursed by Plains.\nG. WHEREAS, Plains represents that it has implemented and will\ncontinue to utilize an electronic tracking tool and software for maintenance\nactivities, including those activities related to mainline valves. The software\ntracks which maintenance activities are performed, who performs the activity,\nwhen prior notifications of maintenance activities by field personnel are received,\nwhen problems requiring maintenance are first discovered, and when\nmaintenance problems are corrected. Plains maintains a separate software\nprogram to track the training and qualifications of all maintenance personnel.\nH. WHEREAS, Plains represents that, following the Refugio Incident\nand pursuant to PHMSA’s CAO, Plains performed a comprehensive review of its\nEmergency Response Plan and Training Program, and revised and updated its\nResponse Plan for Onshore Oil Pipelines for Line 901 and Line 903 (“Bakersfield\nDistrict Response Zone Plan”) to reflect modifications resulting from the review\nand the incorporation of lessons learned. As part of the revision, Plains identified\nthe locations of culverts along the pipelines’ rights-of-way and provided\ncontainment and recovery techniques for responding to spills that may occur near\nthose culverts. Plains provided drafts of the updated Bakersfield District\nResponse Zone Plan to PHMSA, incorporated comments provided by PHMSA,\nand received approval of the revised plan from PHMSA on September 26, 2017.\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- 2 -\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 7 of 102 Page ID #:100\nI. WHEREAS, Plains represents that it also created a more detailed\nGeographic Information System (“GIS”) based online Tactical Response Plan for\nits onshore oil pipelines in Southern California, including Line 2000 and the\noperational portion of Line 903, that, among other things, identifies culverts\nalong the pipelines’ rights-of-way, potential receptors and the equipment,\nsupplies and resources that would be necessary to respond to a spill occurring at\nany given location along those pipelines, identifies the sources and locations for\nobtaining those resources, and, in some instances, establishes stored inventories\nof those resources in specific locations. Plains represents that it intends to keep\nits Tactical Response Plan updated and available for use in drills and spill\nresponse, and that it will make the Tactical Response Plan available to the\nPlaintiffs upon reasonable request and as needed in connection with a drill or\nresponse to a spill.\nJ. WHEREAS, Plains represents that Plains personnel responding to\nincidents that trigger the standup of an incident command structure (“ICS”) have\nbeen provided ICS training appropriate to their responsibilities.\nK. WHEREAS, the relevant Natural Resources trustees (“Trustees”) for\nthe Refugio Incident are the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”);\nUnited States Department of Commerce, on behalf of the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration (“NOAA”); CDFW; California Department of Parks\nand Recreation (“CDPR”); California State Lands Commission (“CSLC”); and\nThe Regents of the University of California (“UC”).\nL. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act\n(‘‘OPA’’), 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., the United States and the State Trustees\nallege that oil from the Refugio Incident caused injuries to Natural Resources,\nincluding birds, marine mammals, shoreline and subtidal habitats, and also had\nan impact upon human uses of Natural Resources and other public resources.\nThe Federal Trustees are designated pursuant to the National Contingency Plan,\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- 3 -\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 8 of 102 Page ID #:101\n40 C.F.R. § 300.600 and Executive Order 12777. CDFW and CDPR are\ndesignated state trustees pursuant to the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R.\n§ 300.605, and the Governor’s Designation of State Natural Resource Trustees\npursuant to Section 1006(b)(3) of OPA and the Comprehensive Environmental\nResponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. In addition, CDFW has state\nnatural resource trustee authority pursuant to California Fish and Game Code\n§§ 711.7 and 1802 and the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and\nResponse Act (California Government Code § 8670.1 et seq.). CDPR and UC\nhave jurisdiction over natural resources within the state park system and the UC\nNatural Reserve System, respectively, which are held in trust for the people of\nthe State of California. CSLC is a state trustee pursuant to its jurisdiction under\nPublic Resources Code § 6301 and Civil Code § 670.\nM. WHEREAS, after the Refugio Incident, the Trustees and Defendants\nentered into a cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment process\npursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 990.14, whereby the Trustees and Defendants jointly and\nindependently planned and conducted a number of injury assessment activities.\nThese activities included gathering and analyzing data and other information that\nthe Trustees used to determine and quantify resource injuries and damages. As a\nresult of this process and other activities, the Trustees identified several\ncategories of injured and damaged Natural Resources, including birds, marine\nmammals, and shoreline and subtidal habitats, as well as effects to human\nuse/recreation resulting from impacts on these Natural Resources, and determined\nthe cost to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured\nNatural Resources. By entering this Consent Decree, Defendants do not admit or\nagree that the Trustees’ NRD findings and determinations are accurate.\nN. WHEREAS, due to the specific facts surrounding the Refugio\nIncident, including the timing, degree, and nature of the spill and the affected\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- 4 -\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 9 of 102 Page ID #:102\nenvironment, the Trustees will not seek additional damages, costs, or expenses\nfor Natural Resources resulting from the Refugio Incident.\nO. WHEREAS, Plains agrees to reimburse costs incurred by the\nTrustees in connection with the NRDA through November 15, 2018, and will not\nreimburse costs incurred by the Trustees in connection with the NRDA after that\ndate.\nP. WHEREAS, by entering into this Consent Decree, Plains does not\nadmit the allegations in the Complaint filed in this action, or any liability to the\nPlaintiffs.\nQ. WHEREAS, on January 28, 2019, PHMSA initiated a regularly-\nscheduled “Integrated Inspection” of a portion of Defendants’ Regulated\nPipelines, as described below, and other pipeline facilities and records, pursuant\nto 49 U.S.C. § 60117.\nR. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that settlement of this matter without\nfurther litigation is in the public interest and that the entry of this Consent Decree\nis the most appropriate means of resolving this action.\nS. WHEREAS, the Parties agree and the Court by entering this Consent\nDecree finds, that this Consent Decree: (1) has been negotiated by the Parties at\narm’s-length and in good faith; (2) will avoid prolonged litigation between the\nParties; (3) is fair and reasonable; and (4) furthers the objectives of the federal\nand state environmental protections, and the federal and state pipeline safety\nlaws.\nI. BACKGROUND\nThe United States, on behalf of PHMSA, the United States Environmental\nProtection Agency (“EPA”), DOI, NOAA, and USCG; and the People of the\nState of California Ex Relatione CDFW, CDPR, CSLC, UC, the California\nCentral Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”), and the\nCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s - Office of the State Fire\nUnited States of America and the People of the State of California v.\nPlains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P.\nConsent Decree\n- 5 -\n\n\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\nCase 2:20-cv-02415 Document 6-1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 10 of 102 Page ID #:103\nMarshal (“OSFM”), filed a Complaint in this matter pursuant to the Clean Water\nAct (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., and associated regulations and orders;\nOPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., and associated regulations and orders; the\nfederal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101 et seq., and associated\nregulations and orders; the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and\nResponse Act, California Government Code §§ 8670.1 et seq. and associated\nregulations; California Fish and Game Code §§ 2014, 5650, 5650.1, 12016,\n13013; California Water Code §§ 13350, 13385; and the Elder California\nPipeline Safety Act of 1981, California Government Code §§ 51010 et seq. The\nComplaint against Plains, inter alia, asserts allegations of violations, and seeks\npenalties, injunctive relief, and Natural Resource Damages.\nNOW, THEREFORE, before the trial of any claims and without\nadjudication or admission of any issue of fact or law and with the consent of the\nParties, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED as follows:\nII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the United\nStates’ claims in this action pursuant to Section 311(b)(7)(E) and (n) of the CWA,\n33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(E) and (n), Section 1017(b) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b);\nSections 60120 and 60122 of the Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60120 and\n60122; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355. This Court has supplemental\njurisdiction over the State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. To the extent\nthe OPA presentment requirement described in 33 U.S.C. § 2713 applies, the\nUnited States and the State Agencies have satisfied the requirement.\n2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 311(b)(7)(E) of\nthe CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(7)(E), Section 1017(b) of OPA,\n33 U.S.C. § 2717(b); Section 60120 of the Pipeline Sa","truncated":true,"body_characters":266960}