{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520180001","title":"PLAINS MARKETING, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-01-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.625(f).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520180001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PLAINS MARKETING, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.625(f). The case was opened on 2018-01-17 and is reported as closed as of 2018-09-13. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520180001_Final Order_09132018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180001/520180001_Final%20Order_09132018.pdf\n\n520180001_Final Order_09132018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180001/520180001_Final%20Order_09132018_text.pdf\n\n520180001_NOPV PCO_01172018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180001/520180001_NOPV%20PCO_01172018.pdf\n\n520180001_NOPV PCO_01172018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180001/520180001_NOPV%20PCO_01172018_text.pdf\n\n520180001_Operator Response to Notice_02212018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180001/520180001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02212018.pdf\n\n520180001_Final Order_09132018_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 13, 2018\nMr. Greg Armstrong\nChairman and CEO\nPlains All American Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nMr. Fred Boutin\nChief Executive Officer\nTransMontaigne Partners, LP\n1670 Broadway, Suite 3100\nDenver, Colorado 80202\nRe: CPF No. 5-2018-0001\nDear Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Boutin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation against your subsidiary, Plains Marketing, LP (Plains), and requests that\nTransMontaigne Operating Company, LP, the successor owner of the facilities that are the\nsubject of this Final Order, take specific actions to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nThere are no outstanding compliance terms for Plains to complete, so the case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Kim West, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Pamela Cannon, DOT Compliance Coordinator, TransMontaigne Operating\nCompany, LP, 200 Mansell Court East, Suite 600, Rosewell, Georgia 30076\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 Marketing, LP, )\na subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, )\nRespondent, ) CPF No. 5-2018-0001\nand )\nTransMontaigne Operating Company, LP, )\na subsidiary of TransMontaigne Partners, LP. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n________________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom July 31, 2017, through August 3, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plains\nMarketing, LP’s (Plains or Respondent) six-inch gas distribution pipeline system that serves\nMartinex Terminal in Concord, California (Pipeline Facility). Plains Marketing, LP, is an\noperating subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP.1 On December 15, 2017,\nTransMontaigne Operating Company, LP (TransMontaigne) assumed ownership of the Pipeline\nFacility.2 TransMontaigne is a subsidiary of TransMontaigne Partners, LP, a terminaling and\ntransportation company that provides integrated terminaling, storage, transportation and related\nservices for customers engaged in the distribution of petroleum products.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\n1 US SEC Form 10-K, Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070423/000110465915013616/a14-25277 110k.htm (last accessed June\n20, 2018).\n2 TransMontaigne Press Release, TransMontaigne Partners L.P. Announces Closing of Acquisition of Two West\nCoast Refined Product and Crude Oil Terminals from Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. available at\nhttp://www.transmontaignepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Press-Release.TLP_.-Announces-Closing-of-\nWest-Coast-Acquisition.12.18.2017.pdf (last accessed June 19, 2018).\n3 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0001\nPage 2\nRespondent, by letter dated January 17, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.625 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violation. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nPlains responded to the Notice by letter dated February 21, 2018 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the violation, noted that it no longer owned the Pipeline Facility, and provided\ninformation regarding the present ownership of the Pipeline Facility. Respondent did not request\na hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Plains did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) …\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with\nthis section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in\nair at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Operators of master meter\nsystems may comply with this requirement by-\n(1) Receiving writing verification from their gas source that the gas has\nthe proper concentration of odorant; and\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to\nconfirm that the gas contains odorant.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct\nperiodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Specifically, during the\ninspection, Plains was unable to provide records or other substantiating evidence to demonstrate\nthat it was conducting periodic sampling of its combustible gas. In addition, Plains stated that it\ndid not conduct periodic sampling because it relied on written verification from Pacific Gas and\nElectric Co. (PG&E) that the gas the utility supplied to Plains was fully odorized.\nPlains’ system, however, is not a master meter system, as defined in 49 C.F.R. § 191.3, because\nit is not a system for distributing gas within, but not limited to, a definable area, such as a mobile\nhome park, housing project or apartment complex, where it purchases metered gas from an\noutside source for resale through a gas distribution system via meter or by other means, such as\nrents. Instead, Plains is the operator and ultimate consumer of the gas it supplies to its thermal\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0001\nPage 3\noxidizer unit and process heater at the Terminal.4 Because Plains is not an operator of a master\nmeter system, as defined in § 191.3, it cannot rely on written verification from its gas source that\nthe gas has the proper concentration of odorant pursuant to § 192.625(f)(1).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct\nperiodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\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 Item 3 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. However, Respondent is no longer\nthe owner of the Pipeline Facility; since TransMontaigne is now the current operator, it is\nTransMontaigne’s responsibility to complete the terms of the Compliance Order in order to\ncomply with the terms of this Final Order. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, I request that TransMontaigne take the following actions to ensure\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.625(f) (Item 3), TransMontaigne should\ndevelop a detailed written process for conducting periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which\nthe odor becomes readily detectable and conduct the test as per the written\nprocedures. The written procedure and periodic sampling records should be\nsubmitted to PHMSA within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is further requested that TransMontaigne maintain documentation of the safety-improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. These\ncosts should be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions\nand other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1 and 2, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192, but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n4 Notice at 3, fn. 6; Plains All American Pipeline, LP, Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-2009-0018 (Aug. 30,\n2013).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0001\nPage 4\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review and\nupdate its manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. Specifically, Plains failed to follow its O&M Manual\nReview Procedure, Section 2.4, which states:\nThe Operating Department shall review the actual work done by\nPlains operating personnel to determine the effectiveness and\nadequacy of the procedures used in the normal operation and\nmaintenance of the fuel gas pipeline. Those reviewing the manual\nshall submit proposed procedure modifications to the\nEnvironmental Health and Safety Department for review and\ninclusion in the manual, if appropriate.\nPlains presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to correct\nthe cited warning items. Pursuant to § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate warning items to\ndetermine if a violation has occurred. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 13, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11730}