{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320045006","title":"MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402, 195.404, 195.406, 195.412, 195.428, 195.442.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320045006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402,  195.404,  195.406,  195.412,  195.428,  195.442. The case was opened on 2004-03-04 and is reported as closed as of 2005-11-07. Proposed civil penalty: $40,000. Assessed civil penalty: $32,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320045006_Final Order_10142005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045006/320045006_Final%20Order_10142005.pdf\n\n320045006_Final Order_10142005.pdf\n\n@\nU.S. Deportment\nof Tronsportolion\nPipeline ond\nHqzordous tnderlols sofety\nAdministrqtion\n400 SWenth Streel, S.W.\nwashington, D.c.20590\nocT 1 4 2005\nRick A. Olsen\nVice President, Pipeline Operations\nMagellan Pipeline Company\nOne Williams Center\nP.O. Box 22186\nTulsa, OK 74t2|-2t86\nRe: CPF No. 3-2004-5006\nDear Mr. Olsen:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pi Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil pena ty of $32,000. ft\nfurther finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required complywiththe\npipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement actt will be closed.\nYour receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. .R. $ 190.s.\nSincerely,\n&,.- t/k*\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance RegistrY\nOffice of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure\ncc:\nIvan Huntoon, Director\nCentral Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY AD\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nMagellan Pipeline Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 3-2004-\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween May 2003 and November 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety pipeline safety inspections of Respondent's facilities and records in Mi Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. As a result of the i\nCentral Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated March 4,2004, a\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).\n49 C.F.R. S 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had commi\n49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $40,000 for the alle\nNotice also proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the al\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 9,2004 (Response).\nexplanations and contested some of the allegations, offered information\nmeasures it has taken, and requested that the proposed civil penalty amount be\ndid not request a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nives of the\nucted on-site\nKansas, Iowa,\nthe Director,\n,\nice of Probable\naccordance with\nviolations of\nviolations. The\nviolations.\nt offered\ncorrective\nRespondent\nIn its Response, Respondent did\nnot contest several of the alleged violati in the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated the following sections of49 C.F.R.Part 195, as more\nfully described in the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. 9 195.402(cX3) (Notice Item 2b) - failing to have wri monitoring and controlling pressures when the Capehart Junction to\nis being operated;\nprocedures for\nTerminal line\n\n\n\n2\n49 c.F.R. $ 195.406(b) (Notice Item 5) - failing to prevent pressure su\nto Eppley and the omaha to KCI lines from exceeding 1r0 percent of\npressure; and\non the Omaha\nmum operatmg\n49 c.F.R. $ 195.428 (Notice Item 7b) - failing to timely inspect and r\ndevices at the Topeka Terminal.\n35 thermal relief\nItem I in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 c.F.R. g 195.402(\nXl) by failing to\nmaintain up-to-date maps ofthe piping configuration ofits Faribault and Albert\nstations at each\nfacility where they may be necessary in the event of a safety-related incident.\nSpecifically, the\nNotice alleged that the \"as built\" prints of the Faribault and Albert Lea stations\nlast updated on\noctober 6, 19 87 andseptember | 6, lggz,respectively, and that subsequent\nto stationpiping\nwere \"penciled-in\" on the diagrams. The Notice further alleged that\nrnaps for these\nstations were not maintained at the Tulsa headquarters facility.\nIn its response, Respondent contended that the drawings at the stations were\nsuffrcient to enable its operations personnel to safely operate the stations. Respo\nnot dispute that it failed to maintain up-to-date maps of the specified\nheadquarters. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated g195.402(cXl) bv\nup-to-date maps of the piping configuration of its Faribault and Albert Lea\nwhere they may be necessary in the event of a safety-related incident.\nurate and were\nat its Tulsa\niling to maintain\nat each facilitv\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 c.F.R. g 1 95.402( c)(12)\nits written procedures for establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police,\npublic officials in certain of its operating areas. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nMissouri, while Respondent generallymet with the heads of the county Local\nCommittees (LEPCs), in many counties it failed to establish liaison with police\nor other actual responders, particularlyin areas where onlyunderground facilities\nNotice further alleged that with respect to South D akota,Respondent was unable\nany liaison meetings had been conducted in 2001. The procedures Respondent\ntime required planning meetings to be conducted with the responders on an\nfailingto follow\nwith respect to\nfire departments\ndemonstrate that\nin place at the\nbasis.\nIn its response, Respondent stated that with respect to Missouri, it had met with\npolice, 911 centers, and highway patrol departments in addition to the meet\ndescribed to OPS during the inspection visit. Respondent acknowledged, how\nthese additional meetings were not conducted until after the OPS inspection. Wi\nDakota, Respondentdidnot disputethatitfailedto conductplanningmeetings in\nI find that Respondent violated $195.402(c)(12) by failing to follow its wri\nestablishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate publ\nspecified areas on an annual basis.\nnumber of fire,\ngs with LEPCs\n,\nthat many of\nrespect to South\n1. Accordingly,\nprocedures for\nc officials in the\n\n\n\nItem 8 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195. Xl) bV failing to\ndemonstrate that the lists of excavators who engage in excavation activities in areainwhich its\npipelines are located were sufficiently current to ensure effective notificat\non of its damage\nprevention program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\nverifywhether the\nthird-parties it used in some cases to meet this requirement maintained lists lyreflecting its\npipeline, and failed to ensure that information concerning excavation activit obtained by its\npersonnel in the course of maintaining and operating its pipelines was i into the lists.\nIn its response, Respondent described the actions that it was currently taking to ifuthe accuracy\nof the lists of excavators but did not dispute the allegation of violation. Respondent violated $195 .a42@)( 1) by failing to demonstrate that the lists of ex in excavation activities in the area in which its pipelines are located as they exi inspection were sufficientlSr current to ensure effective notification of its\ningly, I find that\nwho engage\nat the time ofthe\npreventlon\nprogram.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\ntaken against Respondent.\naction\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nsubject to a civil penalty not to $100,000 per\nto a maximum of $1,000,000 for an related series of\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is\nviolation for each day of the violation up\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining the\nof the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of\nviolation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent\nability to pay the\npenalty, good faith byRespondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the\non Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil ty of $10,000\nfor violating $195.a02(cX1) by failing to maintain up-to-date maps of the pipi configuration of\nits Faribault and Albert Lea stations at each facility where they may be\nin the event of a\nsafety-related incident. Adequate maintenance of station maps at both the stations the associated\nheadquarters facility is essential to ensuring safety because in the event of a sa incident,\ndecisions about control of the stations mav have to be made at the facility. We\nacknowledge that Respondent took corrective action following the OPS inspecti\nimplementing\na facility drawings management program inJanuary 2004. Respondent, however,\nnot presented\ninformation that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed\nin the Notice for\nthis .riolation. Accordingly, hal'ing lsyisr;led the record and considered the as\nt criteria, Iassess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for this violation.\n\n\n\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a ci\nfor violating 9195.402(c)(12) by failing to follow its written procedures\nmaintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public officials in r\nareas. In its response, Respondent provided information concerning addi\nresponders, implementation ofcommunityrelationsprograms to enhance consistr\nand improved documenlation of liaison activities. Based on the forgoing, I\nreduction in the civil penaltyproposed in the Notice for this item is waranted. reviewed the record and considered the assessment citena,I assess Respo\n$1,000 for this violation.\nI penalty of $5,000\nestablishing and\nin of its operating\nmeetings with\nywithAPI1162,\nfind that a partial\ningly, having\na civil penalty of\nWith respect to Item 5, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil\nof $10,000\nfor violating $195.a06@) bv failing to prevent pressure surges on the omaha\nto Eppley and the\nomaha to KCI lines from exceeding 110 percent of rnaximum operatin\npressure (MOP).\nPreventing pressure surges from exceeding 110 percent of MOP is critical to t\nsafe operation of\na pipeline because such surges can adversely impact the integrity of the pipe\nIn this case, the\nspecified line segments run through highly populated urban areas and a relea could have had\nserious consequences. We acknowledge that Respondent has now taken measures\nintended to better control the operating pressures of the specified line\nents and prevent\nexcessive surges. Respondent, however, has not presented information\nwould warrant a\nreduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this item. ingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respo\na civil penalty of\n$10,000 for this violation.\nWith respect to Item Tb,theNotice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil of $10,000\nfor violating $195.428 by failing to timely inspect and test 35 thermal relief at the Topeka\nTerminal. Inspecting control system components within the time interv specified in the\nregulations is a key part of ensuring the safe operation of a pipeline system malfunctioning\ncomponents must be identified and corrected before they cause or conbibute\na safety-elated\nincident. Respondent has not presented information that would warrant a tion in the civil\npenalty amount proposed in the notice for this item. Accordingly, having revi the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10, for this violation.\nWith respect to Item 8, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil of $5,000\nfor violating $195.442(cX1) by failing to demonstrate that the lists of excav who engage in\nexcavation activities in the areainwhich its pipelines are located were sufficientl current to ensure\neffective notification of its damage prevention program. In its response, provided\ninformation conceming amendments it has made to its wrifien operating and described\nits commitment to ensuring that all relevant information concerning excavators\noperate in the\nvicinity of its pipeline is integrated into its damage prevention program notifi process. Based\non the frrgoing, I find t-hat apartial reduction in the civil penaltyproposed in the ine fnrfhic ifem\nis warranted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\ncriteria, Iassess Respondent a civil penalty of $1,000 for this violation.\n\n\n\n5\nRespondent\nAccordingly, havingreviewed the record andconsidered the assessment criteria.\na total civil penalty of $32,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal\n(49 c.F.R. $ 89.21 (b)(3)) require this payrnent be made bywire transfer, through\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detai\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be dirr\noperations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFederalReserve\ninstructions are\nto: Financial\nAeronautical\nFailure to pay the $32,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the annual rate in\naccordancewith3l u.s.c. 53717,31 c.F.R. g 901.9 and49 c.F.R. g s9.23. t to those same\nauthorities, alate penalty charge of six percent (6%)per annum will be c if payrnent is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthennore, failure to paythe civil penaltyr\nresult in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States\nict Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 2b intheNotice\n$ 195.402(c)(3) - failing to have written procedures for monitoring and controlli\nthe Capehart Junction to Capehart Terminal line is being operated. Under 49\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards establis\n601. The Regional Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the followi\nin the Proposed Compliance Order:\nthe violation of\npressures when\n.C. $ 60118(a),\nor operates a\nunderChapter\nactions specified\nRespondent established operational procedures for controlling the line to be used until an over-pressure protection device could be instal of these procedures available to oPS. Respondent installed the device i\nin the specified\nand made a copy\nMay 2004.\nSince compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation, it is u\ndirecting compliance in this Order.\nto include terms\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 2a, 4\nNotice. Therefore, these are considered warning items. Respondent presented\nresponse showing that it is addressing these items. Respondent is again warned t\n6, and 7a in the\nformation in its\nif OPS finds a\nviolation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action ll be taken.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit apetition for Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received ithin 20 days of\nRespondent's receipt ofthis Final Order and must contain a brief statement ofthe i ideration of this\ns). The filing\n\n\n\nof apetition automatically stays thepayrnent of any civil penalty assessed. H ifRespondent\nsubmits payment forthe civil penalty, the Final Orderbecomes the final admini\nthe right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of\nve decision and\nFinal Order are\neffective on receipt.\nb.for Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15738}