{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520155019","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":"2015-09-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.310(a), 195.403(b), 195.403(c), 195.452(i)(1), 195.507.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155019","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520155019","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.310(a),  195.403(b),  195.403(c),  195.452(i)(1),  195.507. The case was opened on 2015-09-11 and is reported as closed as of 2017-09-21. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520155019_Correction to Operator Response_10262015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155019/520155019_Correction%20to%20Operator%20Response_10262015.pdf\n\n520155019_Final Order_09212017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155019/520155019_Final%20Order_09212017.pdf\n\n520155019_Final Order_09212017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155019/520155019_Final%20Order_09212017_text.pdf\n\n520155019_NOPV PCO_09112015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155019/520155019_NOPV%20PCO_09112015.pdf\n\n520155019_NOPV PCO_09112015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155019/520155019_NOPV%20PCO_09112015_text.pdf\n\n520155019_Operator Response to Notice_10122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155019/520155019_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10122015.pdf\n\n520155019_Final Order_09212017_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 21, 2017\nMr. Greg Armstrong\nChairman and CEO\nPlains All American Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2015-5019\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws an\nallegation of violation, makes a finding of a violation, and finds that Plains Pipeline, LP, a\nsubsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, has completed the actions specified in the Notice\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is deemed effective as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Troy Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental Health and Safety,\nPlains Pipeline, LP, 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n________________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nPlains Pipeline, LP, )\na subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 5-2015-5019\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring August 19-22, 2013, September 16-19, 2013, and September 30-October 4, 2013,\npursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of Plains Pipeline, LP’s (Plains or Respondent) Line 901 and Line 903 crude-oil\npipeline system in Bakersfield, California. Plains is an operating subsidiary of Plains All\nAmerican Pipeline, LP,1 which engages in the pipeline transportation of crude oil, refined\nproducts, natural gas, and natural gas liquids in the United States and Canada.2\nAs a result of this inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 11, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). The Notice also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R § 190.205.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had violated\n49 C.F.R. §§ 195.310(a) and 195.452(i)(1), and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent\nhad committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warned Respondent to\ntake appropriate corrective action to address them or face possible enforcement action.\nPlains responded to the Notice by letter dated October 12, 2015 (Response). Plains contested the\nalleged violation of § 195.310(a), offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the proposed compliance order be withdrawn. Plains did not contest the alleged\nviolation of § 195.452(i)(1), but provided additional information in response to the Notice and\n1US SEC Form 10-K, Plains All American Pipeline, LP, available at\nhttp://www.edgarexplorer.com/EFX dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=H4jwq3gtDXw9Z-\n9&ID=11876486 (last accessed June 9, 2017).\n2 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do (last\naccessed June 9, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5019\nPage 2\nrequested that the proposed compliance order be withdrawn. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a), which states:\n§ 195.310 Records.\n(a) A record must be made of each pressure test required by this subpart,\nand the record of the latest test must be retained as long as the facility tested\nis in use.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a) by failing to maintain\nrecords of past pressure tests required under § 195.307. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nPlains did not maintain adequate documentation of pressure tests as part of its baseline\nassessment plan for its seven above-ground breakout tanks at the Pentland Station in Kern\nCounty, California. During the inspection, the Notice alleged that Plains could not present\nevidence of past pressure tests for the above-ground breakout tanks. Plains later provided Tracer\nTight Leak Tests records from 1995, but the Notice alleged these documents did not demonstrate\nthat pressure tests had been performed in accordance with § 195.307.\nIn its Response, Plains stated that it was not required to have records of pressure tests for the\nabove-ground breakout tanks at the Pentland Station as part of its baseline assessment plan.\nPlains argued that baseline assessment plan requirements did not apply to the tanks pursuant to a\nPHMSA Frequently-Asked Question (FAQ), which stated that baseline integrity assessment\nrequirements under § 195.452 only applied to line pipe and not breakout tanks.\nPlains also argued that pressure tests pursuant to § 195.307 were not required for the above-\nground breakout tanks at Pentland Station because they were placed into service during the\nperiod of 1988 – 1993, which was prior to the October 2, 2000 effective date specified in\n§ 195.307.\nPlains stated that although it could not locate full test records for each tank, pressure tests were\nreportedly performed on each tank following its installation. As stated above, Plains provided to\nOPS certain Tracer Tight Leak Tests records from the prior operator and noted that American\nPetroleum Institute (API) Standard 653 inspections had been regularly performed on the tanks\nwithout major alterations/repairs required.\nAnalysis\nSection 195.310 requires operators to make a record of each pressure test required by subpart E\n(Pressure Testing, §§ 195.300—195.310) and retain the record of the latest test as long as the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5019\nPage 3\nfacility is in use. The Notice alleged that § 195.307 pressure-test records for breakout tanks were\nrequired to be a part of Respondent’s baseline assessment plan. The elements to be included in\nan operator’s written baseline assessment plan are identified in § 195.452(c). Section\n195.452(c)(i)(B) requires pressure tests conducted in accordance with subpart E to be included in\nan operator’s baseline assessment plan. In clarifying the applicability of this requirement,\nhowever, PHMSA issued guidance that stated: “[B]aseline integrity assessment and periodic re-\nassessment requirements apply only to line pipe.”3 Consequently, Plains was not required to\nhave pressure-test records as part of its baseline assessment plan for the seven breakout tanks at\nPentland Station.\nIn addition, pressure tests are not required under § 195.307 for breakout tanks first placed into\nservice before October 2, 2000, unless the tank has had a major alteration. The breakout tanks at\nPentland Station were first placed in service before October 2, 2000, and Plains noted in its\nResponse that API 653 inspections were regularly performed on the tanks with no major\nalterations/repairs required. Therefore, pressure tests pursuant to § 195.307 were not required for\nthe Pentland Station breakout tanks.\nTherefore, based on the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 1 be withdrawn.4\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent\nand mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high\nconsequence area. These measures include conducting a risk analysis of the\npipeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safety or\nenvironmental protection. Such actions may include, but are not limited to,\nimplementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring of\ncathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter\ninspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying\nthe systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing additional\ntraining to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local\nemergency responders and adopting other management controls.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to maintain\nadequate documentation of its preventative and mitigative (P&M) evaluations for specific\n3 PHMSA’s Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management: FAQs, Question 2.1,\nhttps://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/iim/faqs.htm.\n4 Though this alleged violation is withdrawn, it should be noted that Plains proffered to conduct an additional static-\nhold test on each tank for which hydrotest records could not be located. By letter dated January 25, 2016, Plains\nindicated that it had completed static-hold testing on each of its seven breakout tanks at Pentland Stations between\nOctober 20 and 27, 2015.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5019\nPage 4\npipeline segments. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains did not maintain adequate\ndocumentation of its P&M evaluations prior to the 2013 calendar year for the “Sisquoc to\nPentland” and “Pentland to Emidio” pipeline segments. Plains acknowledged, in an email dated\nMarch 25, 2014, that it was unable to locate the 2013 P&M evaluation for the above-referenced\npipeline segments. Without the P&M evaluations, the Notice alleged, Plains was unable to\ndemonstrate that it had taken measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline\nfailure that could affect a high consequence area, as required by § 195.452(i)(1).\nIn its Response, Plains did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to\nmaintain adequate documentation of its P&M evaluations prior to 2013 for the “Sisquoc to\nPentland” and “Pentland to Emidio” pipeline segments.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for the\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.310(a) and 195.452(i)(1), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. Since Item 1 was withdrawn, the proposed compliance order addressing that\nis not included.\nFor Item 2, the Director indicated that Respondent had re-evaluated its P&M measures for the\n“Sisquoc to Pentland” and “Pentland to Emidio” pipeline segments and provided updated P&M\nmeasures to PHMSA. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this\nviolation and therefore the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this\nOrder.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3, 4, 5, and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure, in High Consequence\nAreas (HCA) where Plains does not take additional P&M measures, to adequately\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5019\nPage 5\ndocument consideration of P&M measures or its justification for not implementing\nadditional P&M measures in HCAs.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to adequately document\nits annual review of its emergency response training program. OPS found a lack of\ndocumentation demonstrating an adequate review of the training program objectives set\nforth in § 195.403(a) or the decision-making process for changes to its training program.\nOPS noted that all simulated and real emergencies should be self-critiqued with\ndeficiencies identified and recommendations made and followed up on.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have adequate\ndocumentation to demonstrate that supervisors maintained a thorough knowledge of that\nportion of the emergency response procedures established under § 195.402 for which\nthey are responsible for ensuring compliance. Plains’ supervisors were present at\nemergency response training drills; however, there were no records to show or evaluate\nindividual supervisor knowledge in order to verify that each was knowledgeable about\nthe procedures for which they are responsible.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.507 (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain sufficient\nrecords to demonstrate compliance with Subpart G, Operator Qualification. Plains did not\ndocument which qualified contractors performed each covered task on a daily basis.\nEach project file had a written list of all qualified individuals, but there was no written\ndocumentation to show who performed each task on a day-to-day basis.\nPlains responded to the warning items and presented information in its Response showing that it\nhad taken certain actions to address the cited items. Pursuant to § 190.205, an adjudication is not\nconducted for warnings to determine if a violation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of any of\nthese items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590,\nwith a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will\naccept a petition received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the\nRespondent, provided it contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements\nof 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, the\nterms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 21, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15900}