# MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

320045006_Final Order_10142005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045006/320045006_Final%20Order_10142005.pdf

320045006_Final Order_10142005.pdf

@
U.S. Deportment
of Tronsportolion
Pipeline ond
Hqzordous tnderlols sofety
Administrqtion
400 SWenth Streel, S.W.
washington, D.c.20590
ocT 1 4 2005
Rick A. Olsen
Vice President, Pipeline Operations
Magellan Pipeline Company
One Williams Center
P.O. Box 22186
Tulsa, OK 74t2|-2t86
Re: CPF No. 3-2004-5006
Dear Mr. Olsen:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pi Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil pena ty of $32,000. ft
further finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required complywiththe
pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement actt will be closed.
Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. .R. $ 190.s.
Sincerely,
&,.- t/k*
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance RegistrY
Office of Pipeline SafetY
Enclosure
cc:
Ivan Huntoon, Director
Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY AD
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON. DC 20590
In the Matter of
Magellan Pipeline Company,
Respondent.
CPF No. 3-2004-
FINAL ORDER
Between 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
Central Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated March 4,2004, a
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).
49 C.F.R. S 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had commi
49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $40,000 for the alle
Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the al
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 9,2004 (Response).
explanations and contested some of the allegations, offered information
measures it has taken, and requested that the proposed civil penalty amount be
did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
ives of the
ucted on-site
Kansas, Iowa,
the Director,
,
ice of Probable
accordance with
violations of
violations. The
violations.
t offered
corrective
Respondent
In its Response, Respondent did
not contest several of the alleged violati in the Notice.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated the following sections of49 C.F.R.Part 195, as more
fully described in the Notice:
49 C.F.R. 9 195.402(cX3) (Notice Item 2b) - failing to have wri monitoring and controlling pressures when the Capehart Junction to
is being operated;
procedures for
Terminal line



2
49 c.F.R. $ 195.406(b) (Notice Item 5) - failing to prevent pressure su
to Eppley and the omaha to KCI lines from exceeding 1r0 percent of
pressure; and
on the Omaha
mum operatmg
49 c.F.R. $ 195.428 (Notice Item 7b) - failing to timely inspect and r
devices at the Topeka Terminal.
35 thermal relief
Item I in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 c.F.R. g 195.402(
Xl) by failing to
maintain up-to-date maps ofthe piping configuration ofits Faribault and Albert
stations at each
facility where they may be necessary in the event of a safety-related incident.
Specifically, the
Notice alleged that the "as built" prints of the Faribault and Albert Lea stations
last updated on
october 6, 19 87 andseptember | 6, lggz,respectively, and that subsequent
to stationpiping
were "penciled-in" on the diagrams. The Notice further alleged that
rnaps for these
stations were not maintained at the Tulsa headquarters facility.
In its response, Respondent contended that the drawings at the stations were
suffrcient to enable its operations personnel to safely operate the stations. Respo
not dispute that it failed to maintain up-to-date maps of the specified
headquarters. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated g195.402(cXl) bv
up-to-date maps of the piping configuration of its Faribault and Albert Lea
where they may be necessary in the event of a safety-related incident.
urate and were
at its Tulsa
iling to maintain
at each facilitv
Item 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 c.F.R. g 1 95.402( c)(12)
its written procedures for establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police,
public officials in certain of its operating areas. Specifically, the Notice alleged
Missouri, while Respondent generallymet with the heads of the county Local
Committees (LEPCs), in many counties it failed to establish liaison with police
or other actual responders, particularlyin areas where onlyunderground facilities
Notice further alleged that with respect to South D akota,Respondent was unable
any liaison meetings had been conducted in 2001. The procedures Respondent
time required planning meetings to be conducted with the responders on an
failingto follow
with respect to
fire departments
demonstrate that
in place at the
basis.
In its response, Respondent stated that with respect to Missouri, it had met with
police, 911 centers, and highway patrol departments in addition to the meet
described to OPS during the inspection visit. Respondent acknowledged, how
these additional meetings were not conducted until after the OPS inspection. Wi
Dakota, Respondentdidnot disputethatitfailedto conductplanningmeetings in
I find that Respondent violated $195.402(c)(12) by failing to follow its wri
establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate publ
specified areas on an annual basis.
number of fire,
gs with LEPCs
,
that many of
respect to South
1. Accordingly,
procedures for
c officials in the



Item 8 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195. Xl) bV failing to
demonstrate that the lists of excavators who engage in excavation activities in areainwhich its
pipelines are located were sufficiently current to ensure effective notificat
on of its damage
prevention program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
verifywhether the
third-parties it used in some cases to meet this requirement maintained lists lyreflecting its
pipeline, and failed to ensure that information concerning excavation activit obtained by its
personnel in the course of maintaining and operating its pipelines was i into the lists.
In its response, Respondent described the actions that it was currently taking to ifuthe accuracy
of 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
ingly, I find that
who engage
at the time ofthe
preventlon
program.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent
taken against Respondent.
action
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
subject to a civil penalty not to $100,000 per
to a maximum of $1,000,000 for an related series of
Under 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is
violation for each day of the violation up
violations.
49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining the
of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of
violation, degree
of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent
ability to pay the
penalty, good faith byRespondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the
on Respondent's
ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
With respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil ty of $10,000
for violating $195.a02(cX1) by failing to maintain up-to-date maps of the pipi configuration of
its Faribault and Albert Lea stations at each facility where they may be
in the event of a
safety-related incident. Adequate maintenance of station maps at both the stations the associated
headquarters facility is essential to ensuring safety because in the event of a sa incident,
decisions about control of the stations mav have to be made at the facility. We
acknowledge that Respondent took corrective action following the OPS inspecti
implementing
a facility drawings management program inJanuary 2004. Respondent, however,
not presented
information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed
in the Notice for
this .riolation. Accordingly, hal'ing lsyisr;led the record and considered the as
t criteria, Iassess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for this violation.



With respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a ci
for violating 9195.402(c)(12) by failing to follow its written procedures
maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public officials in r
areas. In its response, Respondent provided information concerning addi
responders, implementation ofcommunityrelationsprograms to enhance consistr
and improved documenlation of liaison activities. Based on the forgoing, I
reduction in the civil penaltyproposed in the Notice for this item is waranted. reviewed the record and considered the assessment citena,I assess Respo
$1,000 for this violation.
I penalty of $5,000
establishing and
in of its operating
meetings with
ywithAPI1162,
find that a partial
ingly, having
a civil penalty of
With respect to Item 5, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil
of $10,000
for violating $195.a06@) bv failing to prevent pressure surges on the omaha
to Eppley and the
omaha to KCI lines from exceeding 110 percent of rnaximum operatin
pressure (MOP).
Preventing pressure surges from exceeding 110 percent of MOP is critical to t
safe operation of
a pipeline because such surges can adversely impact the integrity of the pipe
In this case, the
specified line segments run through highly populated urban areas and a relea could have had
serious consequences. We acknowledge that Respondent has now taken measures
intended to better control the operating pressures of the specified line
ents and prevent
excessive surges. Respondent, however, has not presented information
would warrant a
reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this item. ingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respo
a civil penalty of
$10,000 for this violation.
With respect to Item Tb,theNotice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil of $10,000
for violating $195.428 by failing to timely inspect and test 35 thermal relief at the Topeka
Terminal. Inspecting control system components within the time interv specified in the
regulations is a key part of ensuring the safe operation of a pipeline system malfunctioning
components must be identified and corrected before they cause or conbibute
a safety-elated
incident. Respondent has not presented information that would warrant a tion in the civil
penalty amount proposed in the notice for this item. Accordingly, having revi the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10, for this violation.
With respect to Item 8, the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil of $5,000
for violating $195.442(cX1) by failing to demonstrate that the lists of excav who engage in
excavation activities in the areainwhich its pipelines are located were sufficientl current to ensure
effective notification of its damage prevention program. In its response, provided
information conceming amendments it has made to its wrifien operating and described
its commitment to ensuring that all relevant information concerning excavators
operate in the
vicinity of its pipeline is integrated into its damage prevention program notifi process. Based
on the frrgoing, I find t-hat apartial reduction in the civil penaltyproposed in the ine fnrfhic ifem
is warranted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
criteria, Iassess Respondent a civil penalty of $1,000 for this violation.



5
Respondent
Accordingly, havingreviewed the record andconsidered the assessment criteria.
a total civil penalty of $32,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal
(49 c.F.R. $ 89.21 (b)(3)) require this payrnent be made bywire transfer, through
Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detai
contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be dirr
operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.
FederalReserve
instructions are
to: Financial
Aeronautical
Failure to pay the $32,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the annual rate in
accordancewith3l u.s.c. 53717,31 c.F.R. g 901.9 and49 c.F.R. g s9.23. t to those same
authorities, alate penalty charge of six percent (6%)per annum will be c if payrnent is not
made within 110 days of service. Furthennore, failure to paythe civil penaltyr
result in referral
of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States
ict Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 2b intheNotice
$ 195.402(c)(3) - failing to have written procedures for monitoring and controlli
the Capehart Junction to Capehart Terminal line is being operated. Under 49
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards establis
601. The Regional Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the followi
in the Proposed Compliance Order:
the violation of
pressures when
.C. $ 60118(a),
or operates a
underChapter
actions specified
Respondent 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
in the specified
and made a copy
May 2004.
Since compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation, it is u
directing compliance in this Order.
to include terms
WARNING ITEMS
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 2a, 4
Notice. Therefore, these are considered warning items. Respondent presented
response showing that it is addressing these items. Respondent is again warned t
6, and 7a in the
formation in its
if OPS finds a
violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action ll be taken.
Under 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
Respondent's receipt ofthis Final Order and must contain a brief statement ofthe i ideration of this
s). The filing



of apetition automatically stays thepayrnent of any civil penalty assessed. H ifRespondent
submits payment forthe civil penalty, the Final Orderbecomes the final admini
the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of
ve decision and
Final Order are
effective on receipt.
b.for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 15738