# MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320205026
- **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:** 2020-11-06
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.116(f)(2), 195.404(a), 195.452(b)(5), 195.452(j)(1), 195.452(j)(2), 195.505(h).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205026.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205026.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205026
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320205026
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.116(f)(2),  195.404(a),  195.452(b)(5),  195.452(j)(1),  195.452(j)(2),  195.505(h). The case was opened on 2020-11-06 and is reported as closed as of 2024-06-28. Proposed civil penalty: $52,500. Assessed civil penalty: $52,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320205026_Closure Letter_06282024_(16-152634S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_Closure%20Letter_06282024_(16-152634S).pdf

320205026_Closure Letter_06282024_(16-152634S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_Closure%20Letter_06282024_(16-152634S)_text.pdf

320205026_Final Order_06282021_(16-152634S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_Final%20Order_06282021_(16-152634S).pdf

320205026_Final Order_06282021_(16-152634S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_Final%20Order_06282021_(16-152634S)_text.pdf

320205026_NOPV PCP PCO_11062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11062020.pdf

320205026_NOPV PCP PCO_11062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11062020_text.pdf

320205026_Operator Response to Notice_12182020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205026/320205026_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12182020.pdf

320205026_Closure Letter_06282024_(16-152634S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: pierce.norton@oneok.com; mark.materna@oneok.com;
Charles.misak@oneok.com; Jason.A.Smith@oneok.com
June 28, 2024
Mr. Pierce Norton, President/CEO
Magellan Pipeline Company, LLC
100 West 5th Street
Tulsa, OK 74103
RE: CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Dear Mr. Norton:
On June 28, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to Magellan Midstream Partners, LP a Final Order the above-referenced case. This Order
included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty on July 7, 2021, it has
been determined that you have complied with the terms of the Final Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Mr. Mark Materna, VP Refined Products & Crude Oil, Magellan Pipeline Company, LLC
(mark.materna@oneok.com)
Charles Misak, Director, Integrated Operations Services, Magellan Pipeline Company,
LLC (Charles.misak@oneok.com
Jason A. Smith, Vice President, Asset Integrity, Magellan Pipeline Company, LLC
(Jason.A.Smith@oneok.com)

320205026_Final Order_06282021_(16-152634S)_text.pdf

June 28, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: mike.mears@magellanlp.com
Mr. Michael Mears
President & Chief Executive Officer
Magellan Midstream Partners, LP
One Williams Center
P.O. Box 22186
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172
Re: CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Dear Mr. Mears:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $52,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Magellan Midstream Partners, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective
upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Jason Smith, Vice President, Asset Integrity, Magellan Pipeline Company, LP
jason.smith@magellanlp.com
Mr. Mark Materna, Director, Pipeline Integrity, Magellan Pipeline Company, LP
mark.materna@magellanlp.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Magellan Midstream Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2020-5026
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On various dates between December 11, 2018 and October 1, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
§ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted a pipeline safety inspection of the
facilities and records of Magellan Midstream Partners, LP’s (MMP or Respondent) hazardous
liquid pipeline system in Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin. MMP stores and distributes refined petroleum products and
crude oil, and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 6, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that MMP had
committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $52,500
for one of the alleged violations, and proposed that MMP take certain correction measures to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The warning item required no further action, but
warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.
On November 13, 2020, MMP requested a copy of the case file and an extension of time to
respond to the Notice until December 18, 2020. The extension request was granted by the
Director, Central Region the same day. MMP responded to the Notice by letter dated December
18, 2020 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided an
explanation for each violation and requested to clarify and correct a statement contained in Item
5 of the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 Magellan Midstream Partners, LP website, About Us, available at
https://www magellanlp.com/AboutUs/Default.aspx (last accessed June 15, 2021).



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, MMP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(f)(2), which states:
§ 195.116(f)(2) Valves.
Each valve installed in a pipeline system must comply with the
following:
(a) . . .
(f) Each valve must be marked on the body or the nameplate, with at
least the following:
(1) . . .
(2) Class designation or the maximum working pressure to which the
valve may be subjected.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(f)(2) by incorrectly marking
on the valve body or the nameplate the class designation or the maximum working pressure to
which the valve may be subjected. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at MMP’s EDE #1-8”
trap in the El Dorado East Station two valves were marked with an ANSI 400 rating (maximum
working pressure of 960 psig). However, the maximum operating pressure (MOP) on the EDE
#1-8” pipeline was documented as 1111 psig, and the designated maximum working pressure of
the valves is 1150 psig based on the MOP list provided by MMP and reviewed by PHMSA. The
Notice also proposed that MMP take certain corrective measures associated with this alleged
violation as detailed in the Proposed Compliance Oder (PCO).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation or the PCO associated with this Item, but
did provide information related to improvements made to address the admitted noncompliance.
Specifically, Magellan stated that “[o]n January 13, 2019, Magellan provided the PHMSA
Inspector with a modification to the Management of Change Procedure, SIP-ADM-1 1.01, that
requires an MOCR for the replacement of a 400 ANSI valve. Magellan also developed and
implemented a new tag, MGLN-0046 in 5.02-ADM-001 Safety Sign Matrix, which reads
‘WARNING This ANSI 400 valve has a MOP of 1150 psi. Valve shall not be replaced or re-
worked without MOCR and input from Asset Integrity’. Magellan has tagged each of the listed
400 ANSI valves that are rated for 1150 psig accordingly.”2 Accordingly, based upon a review
of all of the evidence and the fact that MMP did not contest the underlying allegation of violation
or the PCO, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(f)(2) by incorrectly marking on
the valve body or the nameplate the class designation or the maximum working pressure to
which the valve may be subjected.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5), which states:
§ 195.452(b)(5) Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
2 Response, at 2.



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 3
(a) . . .
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline
integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:
(1) . . .
(5) Implement and follow the program.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to implement
and follow its Integrity Management Program (IMP). Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Section 6.4 Risk Analysis Overview of MMP’s IMP states that each analysis for facility piping
systems will be documented per the System Equipment Review Form. In reviewing
Respondent’s records, it was determined that 54 of the 71 facilities that could affect a high
consequence area (HCA) did not have completed System Equipment Review Forms.
Additionally, MMP’s IMP allows for the incorporation and analysis of data collected through
several distinct programs, however, these individual programs were not collectively documented
and evaluated on the System Equipment Review Forms to determine if additional preventative or
mitigative measures were necessary for the facilities.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation or the PCO associated with this Item.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to implement and follow its IMP.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)3, which at the time
of the violation stated in relevant part:
§ 195.452(j) Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . .
(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain
a pipeline’s integrity?
(1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an
operator must continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and
periodically evaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect
a high consequence area.
(2) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as
frequently as needed to assure pipeline integrity. An operator must base the
frequency of evaluation on risk factors specific to its pipeline, including the
factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The evaluation must
consider the results of the baseline and periodic integrity assessments,
information analysis (paragraph (g) of this section), and decisions about
remediation, and preventive and mitigative actions (paragraphs (h) and (i)
of this section).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j) by failing to complete
periodic evaluations to assure pipeline integrity on all of its pipeline facilities. Specifically, the
3 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j) was amended effective July 1, 2020. However, the above-referenced violation and
subsequent safety inspection occurred prior to the date of amendment, and thus, said amendment is not applicable
here.



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 4
Notice alleged that MMP identified 71 facilities that were in a HCA or could affect an HCA. Of
those 71 facilities, two facilities, the Columbia Pipeline Junction and the Wathena Pipeline
Junction, had not been evaluated for all the risk factors specific to the facilities. At the time of
the inspection, MMP provided documentation, which showed that several reviews, analyses, or
assessments had not been completed for the two facilities, including System Equipment Review
Form, System Equipment Review Analysis, Facility RISK Model Questionnaire, or a Facility
Risk Ranking Assessment Tool. Consequently, MMP was unable to demonstrate that all
necessary inspections, assessments, and evaluations had been completed to assure pipeline
integrity as required by §195.452(j)(2).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation and stated that it would pay the civil
penalty upon receipt of a final order. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j) by failing to complete periodic evaluations
to assure pipeline integrity on all of its pipeline facilities.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(h), which states:
§ 195.505(h) Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . .
(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure
that individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge
and skills to perform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation
of pipeline facilities; . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(h) by failing to have and
follow procedures for ensuring through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the covered tasks in a manner that ensures
the safe operation of its pipeline facilities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that MMP was unable
to demonstrate that the individuals who performed breakout tank inspections had the necessary
knowledge of MMP’s covered task 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout Tanks as
evidenced by the monthly tank inspection records. The Notice further alleged that MMP’s
covered task list describes Task 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout Tanks as,
“Breakout tanks must be inspected monthly per API 653. The inspection includes the
foundation, the shell, flanges, valves, and the roof.” However, neither MMP’s procedure 7.10-
ADM-009 nor form 07-FORM-0077 provides guidance or a location to record the condition of
the roof. Additionally, MMP’s inspection records did not identify shell distortions, leaks,
unmitigated corrosions pits, and other prevailing tank integrity threats as required by the
breakout tank inspection procedures.
Respondent did not contest the underlying allegation of violation or the PCO associated with this
Item, but requested rescinding a reference in the Notice to the roof inspection criteria in API RP
1161, arguing that API RP 1161 is not incorporated by reference in 49 CFR Part 195 or
Respondent’s procedures. I agree. Therefore the finding of violation in this Final Order does not
contain reference to API RP 1161.



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 5
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.505(h) by failing to have and follow procedures for ensuring through evaluation
that individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform
the covered tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of its pipeline facilities.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $52,500 for the violation cited above in Item 4.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $52,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(j), for failing to complete periodic evaluations to assure pipeline integrity on all of its
pipeline facilities. MMP neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. The nature of the violation was
activity-related due to the operator’s failure to complete the required evaluations, the operator
did not self-report the violation, and the violation occurred in a HCA or HCA could-affect area.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $52,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $52,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 6
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.116(f)(2), 195.452(b)(5), and 195.505(h), respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the
pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.116(f)(2) (Item 1), Respondent must review
all of its valves listed in the excel spreadsheet provided on November 1, 2019, and
verify proper markings as required by §192.116(f) within 60 days of receipt of the
Final Order.5
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(b)(5) (Item 3), Respondent must revise
its procedures to ensure future facilities will be properly evaluated. Respondent must
also complete all of its facility assessments and implement any required actions as
soon as practicable. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, Respondent must
submit a plan with a list of all current facilities and the timing for assessment and
associated actions to the Region Director for approval. Once the Region Director
approves the plan, Respondent must complete the assessments per the approved plan
and submit quarterly reports until completion of the plan.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(h) (Item 5), Respondent must revise its
Operator Qualifications Plan (OQ Plan) and provide additional training to ensure that
individuals have the knowledge and skills necessary to identify shell distortions,
leaks, unmitigated corrosions pits, and other prevailing tank integrity threats. The
amended plan must be in accordance with Respondent’s procedures and also address
proper documentation of these findings so that further tank assessments or remedial
measures may be taken.
Respondent must perform the above-referenced tasks as follows:
a) Within 30 days upon receipt of the Final Order, Respondent must revise its
OQ Plan and the plan’s referenced written procedures and training materials
as applicable to monthly inspections of breakout tanks, as indicated above,
5 The Notice did not propose a date by which the corrective measures in Item 1 must be completed. Having
considered the record, I find that a deadline of 60 days from the date of this Order is reasonable and appropriate.



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 7
b) c) and provide the revised documents to the PHMSA Central Region Office.
Within 90 days upon receipt of the Final Order, Respondent must train and
qualify all of its individuals who independently conduct monthly breakout
tank inspections, in accordance with the written procedures and training
materials described in (a) above.
Within 120 days upon receipt of the Final Order, Respondent must provide to
the PHMSA Central Region Office the list of all individuals who
independently conduct monthly breakout tank inspection, and the date that the
training and qualification of each individual, as described in (b) above, was
completed.
4. All documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined in
this order must be submitted to the Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a
warning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
current maps and records of the location and identification of its pipeline systems
for multiple pipeline facilities, and Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
current maps and records of the diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness
of all pipe.
MMP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address
the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.



CPF No. 3-2020-5026
Page 8
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
June 28, 2021
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320205026_NOPV PCP PCO_11062020_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jason.smith@magellanlp.com
November 6, 2020
Mr. Michael Mears
President and CEO
Magellan Pipeline Company, LP
One Williams Center, P.O. Box 22186
Tulsa, OK 74172
mike.mears@magellanlp.com and
CPF 3-2020-5026
Dear Mr. Mears:
From December 11, 2018 through October 1, 2019, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code (U.S.C.), inspected your Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. (MMP) hazardous
liquid pipeline system in Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected
and the probable violations are:



1. §195.116 Valves.
Each valve installed in a pipeline system must comply with the following:
(a) . . .
following:
(1) . . .
subjected.
(f) Each valve must be marked on the body or the nameplate, with at least the
(2) Class designation or the maximum working pressure to which the valve may be
MMP violated § 195.116(f)(2) by incorrectly marking on the valve body or the nameplate
the class designation or the maximum working pressure to which the valve may be
subjected. At the EDE #1-8” trap in the El Dorado East Station two valves were marked
with an ANSI 400 rating (maximum working pressure of 960 psig). However, the
maximum operating pressure on the EDE #1-8” pipeline was documented as 1111 psig,
and the designated the maximum working pressure of the valves is 1150 psig based on
the MOP list provided by MMP and reviewed by PHMSA. MMP also provided PHMSA
with internal documentation and copies of PHMSA Final Orders CPF 3521 and 3523
describing the justification for using ANSI 400 valves for the pipeline that operated at a
pressure that exceeded the ANSI 400 valve rating.
However, after reviewing the documentation provided to PHMSA, Final Orders CPF
3521 and 3523 indicated that the valves should be marked with the maximum working
pressure to which the valve may be subjected. Furthermore, at the time of the inspection,
MMP could not provide details when requested if an additional 139 mainline valves
where properly marked with the class designation or the maximum working pressure to
which the valves may be subjected. This is supported by a spreadsheet provided by MMP
on November 1, 2019.
2



2. §195.404 Map and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems
that include at least the following information:
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities:
(i) Breakout tanks;
(ii) Pump stations;
(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which §195.402(c)(9) applies;
(vi) Rights-of-way; and
(vii) Safety devices to which §195.428 applies.
(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and foreign
pipelines.
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
(4) The diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.
MMP violated §195.404(a) by failing to maintain current maps and records of the
location and identification of its pipeline systems for multiple pipeline facilities.
On March 19, 2019, PHMSA inspectors discovered that the Argentine Meter Station
piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) failed to accurately depict the custody
transfer location. The P&ID also failed to identify where MMP owned facilities ended
and Sinclair owned facilities began.
On April 5, 2019, PHMSA inspectors discovered that the Lincoln Terminal P&ID failed
to correctly identify thermal relief safety devices to which §195.428 applies with the
correct maximum set points.
On June 3-7, 2019, PHMSA inspectors discovered that the 2016 pipeline replacement
project had not been documented in MMP’s official record keeping system PODs. The
Fargo-Grand Forks #1-6” pipeline had been replaced in 2016 yet the database depicted an
ANSI 400 valve installed on January 1, 1987. The ANSI 400 valve was replaced during
the 2016 replacement project with a higher rated ANSI 600 valve.
MMP also violated 49 C.F.R. §195.404(a) by failing to maintain current maps and
records of the diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.
On June 3-7, 2019, PHMSA inspectors discovered that the 2016 pipeline replacement
project had not been documented in MMP’s official record keeping system PODs. The
Fargo-Grand Forks #1-6” pipeline had been replaced in 2016 yet the database depicted a
repair sleeve installed on September 16, 2014. The repair sleeve was no longer in
existence and was replaced with a new pipeline during the 2016 project.
3



3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . .
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity? Each
operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:
(1) . . .
(5) Implement and follow the program.
MMP violated §195.452(b)(5) by failing to implement and follow its Integrity
Management Program (IMP). Specifically, Section 6.4 Risk Analysis Overview of
MMP’s IMP states that each analysis for facility piping systems will be documented per
the System Equipment Review Form. MMP identified 71 facilities that were in a high
consequence area (HCA) or could affect an HCA. Of those 71 facilities, 54 do not have a
completed System Equipment Review Forms. MMP’s IMP also allows for the
incorporation and analysis of data collected through several distinct programs. Examples
of these programs include ultrasonic thickness inspections per API 510/570, vibration
analysis of rotating equipment, and API 653 tank inspections. However, these individual
programs were not collectively documented and evaluated on the System Equipment
Review Forms to determine if additional preventive or mitigative measures were
necessary for the facilities. Therefore, MMP failed to follow its IMP in performing
analysis for 54 of its 71 facilities.
4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . .
(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline’s
integrity?
(1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an operator must
continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the
integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area.
(2) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as
needed to assure pipeline integrity. An operator must base the frequency of
evaluation on risk factors specific to its pipeline, including the factors specified in
paragraph (e) of this section. The evaluation must consider the results of the
baseline and periodic integrity assessments, information analysis (paragraph (g) of
this section), and decisions about remediation, and preventive and mitigative actions
(paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section).
MMP violated §195.452(j)(2) by failing to complete periodic evaluations to assure
pipeline integrity on all of its pipelines, including facilities. MMP identified 71 facilities
that were in a HCA or could affect an HCA. Of those 71 facilities, two facilities, the
Columbia Pipeline Junction and the Wathena Pipeline Junction, had not been evaluated
for all the risk factors specific to the facilities. At the time of the inspection, MMP
4



provided documentation, which showed that none of the following reviews, analyses, or
assessments had been completed for these two facilities: System Equipment Review
Form, System Equipment Review Analysis, Facility RISK Model Questionnaire, or a
Facility Risk Ranking Assessment Tool. Consequently, MMP was unable to demonstrate
that all necessary inspections, assessments, and evaluations had been completed to assure
pipeline integrity as required by §195.452(j)(2).
5. §195.505 Qualification Program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall include provisions to:
(a) . . .
(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that
individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to
perform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities;
and . . .
MMP violated §195.505(h) by failing to have and follow its procedure for ensuring
through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary
knowledge and skills to perform certain covered tasks required by its Operator
Qualification (OQ) Program in a manner that ensures the safe operation of its pipeline
facilities. Specifically, MMP was unable to demonstrate that the individuals who
performed breakout tank inspections had the necessary adequate knowledge of MMP’s
covered task 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout Tanks as evidenced by the
monthly tank inspection records.
MMP’s covered task list describes Task 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout
Tanks as, “Breakout tanks must be inspected monthly per API 653. The inspection
includes the foundation, the shell, flanges, valves, and the roof.” Furthermore, the
covered task list also references API RP 1161 Task 27.1-Perform Routine Inspection of
Breakout Tanks (API 653 Monthly or DOT Annual). Section 3 step 5 of API RP 1161
Task 27.1-1 specifically states, “Visually inspect the tank roof for the following: coating
conditions, holes, pitting, and corrosion; standing or pooling water or product; floating
roof out of level.” However, neither MMP’s procedure 7.10-ADM-009 nor form 07-
FORM-0077 provides guidance or a location to record the condition of the roof.
Additionally, MMP’s inspection records did not identify shell distortions, leaks,
unmitigated corrosions pits, and other prevailing tank integrity threats as required by the
breakout tank inspection procedures. During PHMSA’s inspection, MMP’s Tank
Integrity Manager made a comment that the company’s OQ training for breakout tanks
had room for improvement. Therefore, MMP failed to have and follow a procedure for
ensuring through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary
knowledge and skills to perform certain covered tasks, specifically breakout tank
5



inspections, required by its OQ Program in a manner that ensures the safe operation of its
pipeline facilities.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a
related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before
July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a
maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,
2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring
prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per
day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We
have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable
violation(s) and recommend that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $ 52,500 as
follows:
Item number
PENALTY
4
$ 52,500
Warning Item
With respect to item 2, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved
in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment
proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item. Failure to do so may
result in additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 3, and 5, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Magellan Midstream
Partners, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a
part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information
qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
6



Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a
hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,
this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further
notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that
you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This
period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2020-5026 and, for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
Cc: Mr. Jason Smith, Vice President of Asset Integrity, Magellan Pipeline Company, LP
One Williams Center, OTC-9,Tulsa, OK 74172, jason.smith@magellanlp.com
7



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Magellan
Midstream Partners, L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to MMP’s failure to properly
m
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 43261