{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320195015M","title":"WOLVERINE PIPELINE CO — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-04-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(d)(1), 195.402(d)(2), 195.420(a), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(4), 195.452(g), 195.452(h)(1), 195.559(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320195015m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320195015m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320195015m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320195015M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving WOLVERINE PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(c)(3),  195.402(d)(1),  195.402(d)(2),  195.420(a),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(f)(4),  195.452(g),  195.452(h)(1),  195.559(a). The case was opened on 2019-04-11 and is reported as closed as of 2021-07-20. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320195015M_Closure Letter_07202021_(16-155088S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Closure%20Letter_07202021_(16-155088S).pdf\n\n320195015M_Closure Letter_07202021_(16-155088S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Closure%20Letter_07202021_(16-155088S)_text.pdf\n\n320195015M_Notice of Amendment_04112019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_04112019.pdf\n\n320195015M_Notice of Amendment_04112019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_04112019_text.pdf\n\n320195015M_Operator Post-Hearing Submission_01302020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Submission_01302020.pdf\n\n320195015M_Operator Pre-Hearing Submissions_10252019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submissions_10252019.pdf\n\n320195015M_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_07222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_07222019.pdf\n\n320195015M_Order Directing Amendment_09032020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_09032020.pdf\n\n320195015M_Order Directing Amendment_09032020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_09032020_text.pdf\n\n320195015M_PHC Hearing Scheduled_08272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320195015M/320195015M_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_08272019.pdf\n\n320195015M_Closure Letter_07202021_(16-155088S)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: saul flota@wplc.com tom morneau@wplc.com\nMatthew_Dunne@wplco.com Steve_Iseminger@wplco.com\nJuly 20, 2021\nMr. Saul Flota\nPresident\nWolverine Pipe Line Company\n8075 Creekside Drive, Suite 210\nPortage, Michigan 49024\nCPF 3-2019-5015M\nDear Mr. Flota:\nOn May 22, 2017 through July 20, 2017, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Wolverine PipeLine Company procedures in\nIllinois, Imdiana, and Michigan. As a result of the inspection, Wolverine Pipe Line Company was\nissued an Order Directing Amendment on September 3, 2020, which ordered amendments of your\nprocedures.\nWolverine Pipe Line Company submitted final amended procedures on September 18, 2020. My\nstaff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Order\nDirecting Amendment have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Thomas Morneau, General Counsel (tom_morneau@wplc.com)\nMatthew Dunne, VP and Manager, Matthew_Dunne@wplco.com\nSteve Iseminger, DOT Compliance, Steve_Iseminger@wplco.com\n\n320195015M_Order Directing Amendment_09032020_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 3, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: saul flota@wplc.com\nMr. Saul Flota\nPresident\nWolverine Pipe Line Company\n8075 Creekside Drive, Suite 210\nPortage, Michigan 49024\nRe: CPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nDear Mr. Flota:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case to\nWolverine Pipe Line Company. It makes findings of inadequate procedures, withdraws one\nallegation, and requires that Wolverine amend certain portions of its operating and maintenance\nprocedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order by\ncertified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, 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: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Thomas Morneau, General Counsel, Wolverine Pipe Line Company,\ntom_morneau@wplc.com\nMr. Vince Murchison, Esq., Counsel for Respondent, Murchison Law Firm, PLLC,\nvince.murchison@pipelinelegal.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nWolverine Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 3-2019-5015M\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom May through July 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an inspection of the procedures, records, and facilities of Wolverine Pipe Line\nCompany (Wolverine or Respondent), in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Wolverine has\nheadquarters in Portage, Michigan. The pipeline system consists of 700 miles that transports\nrefined products, including gasoline and diesel fuel, from Illinois to Michigan.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 11, 2019, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.206, the Notice proposed finding that certain of Wolverine’s plans and procedures were\ninadequate to assure safe operation and proposed that Respondent amend its procedures for\noperations, maintenance, and emergencies.\nThe Murchison Law Firm, on behalf of Wolverine, responded to the Notice by letter dated July\n22, 2019 (Response). The company did not contest one alleged inadequacy, contested two of the\nalleged inadequacies, and requested an in-person hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nNovember 5, 2019, before a PHMSA Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was\nrepresented by counsel. Respondent provided additional materials prior to the hearing on\nOctober 25, 2019 (Pre-hearing submission), and following the hearing on January 30, 2020\n(Post-hearing submission). The Director submitted a post-hearing recommendation on March\n27, 2020 (Recommendation), to which the Respondent submitted a response on April 15, 2020\n(Response to the Region Recommendation).\n1 Wolverine Pipe Line Company website, available at (https://wolverinepipeline.com/shippers/systems-overview/\n(last accessed August 19, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) ….\n(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety when\noperating design limits have been exceeded:\n(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:\n(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;\n(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal\noperating limits;\n(iii) Loss of communications;\n(iv) Operation of any safety device;\n(v) Any other malfunction of a component, deviation from normal\noperation, or personnel error which could cause a hazard to persons or\nproperty.\n(2) Checking variations from normal operation after abnormal operation\nhas ended at sufficient critical locations in the system to determine\ncontinued integrity and safe operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies was inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 in that it failed to address how\ncontrollers respond to abnormal operations and check facilities for integrity before restarting\noperations. Specifically, Wolverine’s Abnormal Operating Condition Restart Report did not\ninclude all of the required abnormal operations, including increase or decrease in pressure or\nflow rate outside normal operating limits. In addition, the Notice alleged that the Report did not\nrequire controllers to check variations from normal operation to determine continued integrity\nand safe operation before restarting operations.\nWolverine amended this procedure prior to issuance of the Notice. The Director reviewed the\namended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were\ninadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately modified.\nTherefore, no further action is necessary.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402, which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 3\npipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations\nand emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and\nappropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a\npipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at\nlocations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) ….\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following\nto provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) ….\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part; …\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the\nsafe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Wolverine’s operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 because they failed to provide sufficient guidance\non valve maintenance in accordance with § 195.420, which provides that operators must\nmaintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline systems in good\nworking order. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s DOT Operations and\nMaintenance Manual (dated 10/2002) failed to define the inspection period for valves that were\nneeded for the safe operation of the system, as required by this regulation.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Wolverine did not contest the allegation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were\ninadequate, as alleged in the Notice. Wolverine is hereby ordered to amend its procedures to\ndefine the inspection period for other valves that were needed for safe operation of the system, as\nrequired under 49 C.F.R. §195.420(a).\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above, because they failed to\nproperly define how to maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline\nsystems in good working order at all times. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Wolverine’s\nO&M Manual failed to explain how to determine the valve position from indicator lights on a\nvalve actuator. During the inspection, OPS inspectors observed light indicators on valves\nlocated at the Albion Pump Station and the Lansing Terminal. The Notice alleges that\nWolverine’s O&M Manual, Section 195.420 failed to define how to determine that OPS alleges\nthat Wolverine’s O&M Manual and FIMMS procedure “do not specify nor establish that the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 4\nlight indicators on the motor-operated valve actuators should not be relied upon for determining\nthe valve position.”\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Wolverine contested the allegation on several bases, but its\nprimary objection is that Wolverine uses a physical indicator, and not actuator lights, to indicate\nvalve position.\nMr. Murchison: And are you familiar with these indicator lights --\nMr. Caddick: Yes.\nMr. Murchison: -- that are at issue here? What's your reaction to this alleged inadequacy that\nsays that the Wolverine O&M does not define how to determine valve position using actuator\nlights?\nMr. Caddick: I do not agree with it.\nMr. Murchison: Why do you not agree with that?\nMr. Caddick: Because we do not use indicator lights to determine position.\nMr. Murchison: What do you use?\nMr. Caddick: A physical indicator.\nMr. Murchison: Can you describe a physical indicator?\nMr. Caddick: A physical indicator is as FIMMS program speaks to, an indicator rod or another\nphysical device on the valve that changes position when the valve changes state.2\nMr. Caddick, an area supervisor for Wolverine, testified that all of Wolverine’s valves use\nphysical indicators (not actuator lights) to indicate whether its valves are in an open or closed\nposition. Even though there are actuator lights on some of these valves, the lights are not what\nWolverine personnel use to determine whether the valves are in the open or closed position.\nTherefore, Wolverine asserts that it should not amend its procedures to include a reference to\nindicator lights because they are not used. At the hearing, OPS testified that Wolverine\npersonnel indicated that the actuator lights were used by personnel to determine valve status,\nwhich is why the allegation was included in the Notice. In the Region Recommendation, OPS\nmaintains that Wolverine “must amend its procedures to define the purposes of the light\nindic[a]tors on motor-operated valve actuators in determining valve position in order to ensure\nsafe operation of its pipeline system.”3\nI agree that the valve indicator lights should be referenced in Wolverine’s O&M Manual, at least\nto clarify that they are not to be used. Nevertheless, as Wolverine appropriately argues, OPS is\nrestricted to the specific allegation in the Notice, which stated that Wolverine was to “define how\nto determine the valve position from the indicator lights on a valve actuator.”4 Even if such\ndefinition simply indicates that the indicator lights should be disregarded, I hereby order\nWolverine to clearly state in its O&M Manual that all indicator lights should be disregarded, as\nthey are not used to determine valve position.\n2 NOA Hearing Transcript, at 66.\n3 Region Recommendation, at 4.\n4 Notice, at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 5\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments, and\nother maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of\na failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at\nminimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) ….\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see\nparagraph (g) of this section); …\n(g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the\nintegrity of each pipeline segment (paragraph (j) of this section), an operator\nmust analyze all available information about the integrity of the entire\npipeline and the consequences of a failure. This information includes:\n(1) Information critical to determining the potential for, and preventing,\ndamage due to excavation, including current and planned damage prevention\nactivities, and development or planned development along the pipeline\nsegment;\n(2) Data gathered through the integrity assessment required under this\nsection;\n(3) Data gathered in conjunction with the other inspections, tests,\nsurveillance and patrols required by this Part, including, corrosion control\nmonitoring and cathodic protection surveys; and\n(4) Information about how a failure would affect the high consequence\narea, such as location of the water intake.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s written integrity management process was inadequate with\nregard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 because it failed to include an information analysis that analyzes\nall available information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a\nfailure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Wolverine’s Integrity Management Program in High\nConsequence Areas, Version 2014-1 (IMP Manual) did not define an information analysis\nprocess that addressed all threats for each pipeline, including not identifying any threats for the\nKennedy to Niles pipeline segment.\nWolverine licenses and uses TIARA (Threat Identification and Risk Assessment Manual), a\nprocess of threat identification and risk assessment that was developed by ExxonMobil Pipeline\nCompany. The Notice alleges and OPS continues to argue that this “TIARA process”\ninadequately implements the requirement that Wolverine conduct an information analysis that\nintegrates all information about the integrity of its pipeline system, as evidenced by fact that the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 6\nTIARA process did not identify any threats for the Kennedy to Niles pipeline segment.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Wolverine argues that the Region Recommendation alters the\noriginal allegation in the Notice.5 The Notice states that Wolverine must “define an information\nanalysis process that address[es] all threats for each pipeline,” then goes on to state the\ninadequacies of the information analysis conducted for the Kennedy to the Niles pipeline\nsegment. In the Region Recommendation, OPS states that the process used by Wolverine only\naccounts for the highest consequence threats, and inappropriately eliminate[s] threats that did not\nmeet Wolverine’s definition of a significant threat.” Even if this is true, it remains unclear, from\nthe allegation in the Notice, what OPS wants the Respondent to change. The Region\nRecommendation makes a fair argument that the TIARA process does not meet the standards\nrequired of an information analysis that is compliant with OPS regulations. However, it still\ndoes not state with specificity what changes the agency is seeking. 49 C.F.R. § 190.206 states\nthat a Notice of Amendment will “specify the alleged inadequacies and the proposed revisions of\nthe plans or procedures.” Without more specificity regarding what needs to change in the\nRespondent’s procedures, I cannot order the Respondent to amend their procedures.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I am withdrawing this allegation.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments, and\nother maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of\na failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at\nminimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) ….\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nassessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection); …\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions in the pipeline that the operator discovers\nthrough the integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all\nconditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and\nremediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity, as required by this\npart. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the\n5 “The NOA alleges that Respondent's IMP15 did not address \"all threats for each pipeline\"; however, the agency\nnow argues that the IMP \"was inadequate to integrate all available information about the integrity of pipeline\nsegments by excluding threats of the pipeline integrity that were not deemed 'significant.’” Operator Response to the\nRegion Recommendation, at 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 7\ncondition will ensure that the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the\nlong-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with §195.422\nwhen making a repair.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s IMP Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\nwas inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) in that it failed to address criteria for\nremedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the assessment methods and information\nanalysis. Specifically, Wolverine’s IMP Manual, Section 4, did not address how assessment tool\ntolerances were considered for corrosion anomalies.\nWolverine amended this procedure prior to its Response. The Director reviewed the amended\nprocedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the\nNotice, but have subsequently been adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is\nnecessary.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments, and\nother maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of\na failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at\nminimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) ….\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nassessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection); …\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions in the pipeline that the operator discovers\nthrough the integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all\nconditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and\nremediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity, as required by this\npart. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the\ncondition will ensure that the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the\nlong-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with §195.422\nwhen making a repair.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to develop a pipeline repair manual that addressed the\nrepair methods that were used by Wolverine. Specifically, Wolverine’s IMP Manual, Section\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 8\n4.4.2 listed in the Repair and Modification table conflicted with the repair methods used on\nWolverine’s pipeline system.\nWolverine amended this procedure prior to its Response. The Director reviewed the amended\nprocedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the\nNotice, but have subsequently been adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is\nnecessary.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402, which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) ….\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) ….\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of\nthis part.\n§ 195.559 What coating material may I use for external corrosion\ncontrol?\n(a) Coating material for external corrosion control under § 195.557\nmust –Be designed to mitigate corrosion of the buried or submerged\npipeline; …\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s IMP Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\nwas inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 in that it failed to address the coating material\nthat may be used for external corrosion control. Specifically, Wolverine’s Facilities Inspection\nand Maintenance Manual Pipe Coating Program, Revision 1.10 did not address the application of\nRD6 coating that was utilized at the Darden Road ILI dig site.\nWolverine amended this procedure prior to its Response. The Director reviewed the amended\nprocedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2019-5015M\nPage 9\nreview of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the\nNotice, but have subsequently been adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is\nnecessary.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Wolverine is ordered to revise its\nprocedures as specified in Item 3 above. Respondent must submit the amended procedures to the\nDirector, Central Region, within 30 days following receipt of this Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each\nviolation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Order\nDirecting Amendment to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200\nNew Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to\nthe Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of\nservice of this Order Directing Amendment by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain\na statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of\nthe order, including required amendment to procedures, remain in effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 3, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320195015M_Notice of Amendment_04112019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 11, 2019\nMr. Saul Flota\nPresident\nWolverine Pipe Line Company\n8075 Creekside Drive\nSuite 210\nPortage, Michigan 49024\nCPF 3-2019-5015M\nDear Mr. Flota:\nFrom May 22 – 26 and June 12- 16, 2017, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), inspected Wolverine Pipe Line Company’s (“Wolverine”) procedures for integrity\nmanagement and operations and maintenance in Portage, Michigan.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nWolverine Pipe Line Company’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section\nmust include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating\ndesign limits have been exceeded:\n(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:\n(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;\n(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating limits;\n\n\n\n(iii) Loss of communications;\n(iv) Operation of any safety device;\n(v) Any other malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or\npersonnel error which could cause a hazard to persons or property.\n(2) Checking variations from normal operation after abnormal operation has\nended at sufficient critical locations in the system to determine continued\nintegrity and safe operation.\nWolverine failed to develop adequate procedures for controllers to respond to abnormal\noperations and check facilities for integrity before restarting operations.\nWolverine’s Abnormal Operating Condition Restart Report (Report) is completed by\ncontrollers for abnormal operations. The Report did not include all of the abnormal operations\nrequired by §195.402(d). The Report omitted an increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate\noutside normal operating limits and included unauthorized valve closure, instead of unintended\nclosures of valves or shutdowns.\nThe Report also did not require the controllers to check variations from normal operation after\nabnormal operation has ended at sufficient critical locations in the system to determine\ncontinued integrity and safe operation before restarting operations.\nWolverine amended this procedure and submitted it to PHMSA, which was found satisfactory.\nNo further action needs to be taken regarding this item.\n2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities\nand handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to ensure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n2\n\n\n\n(2) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\n§195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe\noperation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\nWolverine’s DOT Operations and Maintenance Manual, Issued October 2002 (O&M Manual),\nSection 195.420, did not define the inspection period for other valves that were needed for the\nsafe operation of the system.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) See above.\n(b) …\n(c)(3) See above.\n§195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe\noperation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\nWolverine’s O&M Manual, Section 195.420, did not define how to determine the valve\nposition from the indicator lights on a valve actuator. The valve indicator was needed to\ndetermine the valve position, which was necessary for the safe operation of the pipeline\nsystem. Wolverine provided conflicting interpretations for valve position from the indicator\nlights on valve actuators. Wolverine noted that the indicator lights on the valve actuator\nindicated that valve was in the remote or the local position and that the valve was in the open\nor the closed position.\n4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions\ndrawn from results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and\nsurveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high\nconsequence area. An operator must include, at minimum, each of the following\nelements in its written integrity management program:\n3\n\n\n\n(1) . . .\n(2) . . .\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the integrity of the\nentire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see paragraph (g) of this\nsection);\n(g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the integrity of\neach pipeline segment (paragraph (j) of this section), an operator must analyze\nall available information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the\nconsequences of a failure. This information includes:\n(1) Information critical to determining the potential for, and preventing, damage\ndue to excavation, including current and planned damage prevention activities,\nand development or planned development along the pipeline segment;\n(2) Data gathered through the integrity assessment required under this section;\n(3) Data gathered in conjunction with other inspections, tests, surveillance and\npatrols required by this Part, including, corrosion control monitoring and\ncathodic protection surveys; and\n(4) Information about how a failure would affect the high consequence area,\nsuch as location of the water intake.\nWolverine’s Integrity Management Program in High Consequence Areas, Version 2014-1\n(IMP Manual), did not define an information analysis process that addressed all threats for\neach pipeline. Wolverine’s Threat Identification and Risk Assessment Model (TIARA) did not\nidentify any threats for the Kennedy to Niles pipeline segment. Additionally, in the evaluation\nprocess, Wolverine only identified third party damage as a threat and only developed\npreventive and mitigative measures that addressed third party damage.\n5. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions\ndrawn from results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and\nsurveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high\nconsequence area. An operator must include, at minimum, each of the following\nelements in its written integrity management program:\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nassessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this section);\n(g)…\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?—\n4\n\n\n\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all\nanomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or\ninformation analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all\nanomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's\nintegrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the\ncondition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term\nintegrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with §195.422 when making a\nrepair.\nWolverine's IMP Manual, Section 4., inadequately addressed how assessment tool tolerances\nwere considered for corrosion anomalies.\nWolverine amended this procedure and submitted it to PHMSA, which was found satisfactory.\nNo further action needs to be taken regarding this item.\n6. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(f)(4) See above.\n(h)(1) See above.\nWolverine failed to develop a pipeline repair manual that addressed the repair methods that\nwere used by Wolverine. The IMP Manual, Section 4.4.2., referenced Wolverine’s Repair and\nModification Manual for approved repair methods. The repair methods listed in the table in\nthe Repair and Modification Manual conflicted with the repair methods used on Wolverine’s\npipeline system. During the inspection, Wolverine noted that all repairs were determined by the\nRisk & Integrity Specialist. The Repair and Modification Manual listed bolt on clamps as\npermanent repair methods, however, the Risk & Integrity Specialist noted that bolt on clamps\nwere temporary repair methods.\nWolverine amended this procedure and submitted it to PHMSA, which was found satisfactory.\nNo further action needs to be taken regarding this item.\n7. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) See above.\n(b) …\n(c)(3) See above.\n§195.559 What coating material may I use for external corrosion control?\nCoating material for external corrosion control under §195.557 must –\n5\n\n\n\n(a) Be designed to mitigate corrosion of the buried or submerged pipeline;\nWolverine’s Facilities Inspection and Maintenance Manual Pipe Coating Program, Revision\n1.10, did not address the application of RD6 coating that was utilized at the Darden Road ILI\nDig Site.\nWolverine amended this procedure and submitted it to PHMSA, which was found satisfactory.\nNo further action needs to be taken regarding this item.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed\nas part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised 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\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must 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\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a w","truncated":true,"body_characters":43256}