{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125011M","title":"MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-03-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.116(d), 195.120(a), 195.214(a), 195.222, 195.226(c), 195.228, 195.266, 195.302(a), 195.305(a), 195.310(b), 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(4), 195.402(c)(6), 195.402(c)(9), 195.402(d), 195.402(d)(2), 195.404(b)(2), 195.420, 195.422(a), 195.424(b)(3)(ii), 195.428(a), 195.436, 195.444, 195.5(a)(3), 195.52(a)(5), 195.52(b), 195.575.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125011m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125011m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125011m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125011M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.116(d),  195.120(a),  195.214(a),  195.222,  195.226(c),  195.228,  195.266,  195.302(a),  195.305(a),  195.310(b),  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(4),  195.402(c)(6),  195.402(c)(9),  195.402(d),  195.402(d)(2),  195.404(b)(2),  195.420,  195.422(a),  195.424(b)(3)(ii),  195.428(a),  195.436,  195.444,  195.5(a)(3),  195.52(a)(5),  195.52(b),  195.575. The case was opened on 2012-03-23 and is reported as closed as of 2014-06-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125011M_Closure Letter_06172014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_Closure%20Letter_06172014.pdf\n\n420125011M_Closure Letter_06172014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_Closure%20Letter_06172014_text.pdf\n\n420125011M_NOA_03232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_NOA_03232012.pdf\n\n420125011M_NOA_03232012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_NOA_03232012_text.pdf\n\n420125011M_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Time Extension_04272012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Time%20Extension_04272012.pdf\n\n420125011M_Order Directing Amendment_08082013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_08082013.pdf\n\n420125011M_Order Directing Amendment_08082013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125011M/420125011M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_08082013_text.pdf\n\n420125011M_Closure Letter_06172014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 17, 2014\nMr. Michael Pearson\nSenior Vice President of Technical Services\nMagellan Pipeline Company, L.P.\nP.O. Box 22186, Mail Drop 27\nTulsa, OK 74172\nCPF No. 4-2012-5011M\nDear Mr. Pearson:\nOn various dates in 2010 and 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the\nMagellan procedures. As a result of these inspections a Notice of Amendment (NOA) was\nissued on March 23, 2012 to Magellan.\nOn August 8, 2013 PHMSA issued an Order Directing Amendment (ODA) requiring Magellan\nto make certain additional revisions to its procedures. On September 24, 2014, Magellan\nsubmitted a response to the ODA that included additional procedural revisions.\nBased upon review of the September 24, 2014 Magellan response, PHMSA has determined that\nthe ODA required procedural revisions made by Magellan are acceptable.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n\n420125011M_Order Directing Amendment_08082013_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 8, 2013\nMr. Michael Mears, CEO\nMagellan Pipeline Company, LP\nOne Williams Center\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5011M\nDear Mr. Mears:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that Magellan Pipeline Company, LP,\namend certain operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures has\nbeen completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will\nbe closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by certified mail is effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Larry Davied, Vice President, Technical Services, Magellan Midstream Partners,\nLP, One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172\nMr. R. M. Seeley, Southwest Region Director, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nMagellan Pipeline Company, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5011M\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nOn various dates in 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninspected the procedures for operating and maintenance for Magellan Pipeline Company, LP\n(Magellan or Respondent). Magellan owns and operates the longest refined-petroleum-products\npipeline system in the country.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 23, 2012, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). The Notice\nalleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s written procedures for operations, maintenance and\nemergencies and requested, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, that Respondent amend\nthem.\nMagellan Midstream Partners, LP, responded to the Notice on behalf of Respondent by letters\ndated April 27, 2012, and May 25, 2012 (collectively, Response), and submitted amended\nprocedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. The\nDirector has reviewed the amended procedures submitted by Respondent. Based on the result of\nthis review, I find that Respondent's amendments adequately address Items 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 15-17,\n20-22, and 24 in the Notice. For the reasons discussed below, I find the amendments still do not\nadequately address Items 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 18-19, 23, and 25-27.\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s procedures. Respondent did not contest\nthe allegations but submitted amended procedures to address the inadequacies. As noted above, I\nhave reviewed the revised procedures and considered the following factors: relevant available\npipeline safety data; whether the plans are adequate for Respondent’s unique facilities and in\n1 http://www magellanlp.com/default.aspx (last visited March 25, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\ntheir particular location; the reasonableness of the procedures; and the extent to which the\nprocedures contribute to public safety. Upon such review of the revised procedures under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.237, I find the following procedures to be inadequate:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a),\nwhich states:\n§ 195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents.\n(a) Notice requirements. At the earliest practicable moment following\ndiscovery of a release of the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\ntransported resulting in an event described in § 195.50, the operator of the\nsystem must give notice, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section,\nof any failure that:\n(1) . . .\n(5) In the judgment of the operator was significant even though it did\nnot meet the criteria of any other paragraph of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s Release Reporting Procedure 13.01-ADM-001, Section\n3.2.2, did not have an explanation of how Magellan interpreted the term “significant” for the\npurpose of telephonic reporting of accidents under 49 C.F.R. § 195.52(a)(5).2 Also, the Notice\nalleged that the procedure lacked an assignment of responsibility to a person or position for\nmaking specific determinations of what “significant” means or what factors were used in making\nsuch determinations.\nIn its Response, Magellan stated that it considers “Estimated property damage exceeding\n$50,000 (including repair, emergency response and remediation)” and “Classification as a Code\nRed per 9.02-ADM-011 – Emergency Code Red Investigation Procedure,” in paragraph 3.1.2 of\n12.01-ADM-001- Release Reporting Procedure, to be “significant.”\nHowever, these conditions are already covered by the telephonic reporting requirements of\n§ 195.52 and do not address how Magellan determines whether other accidents are significant\naccording to § 195.52(a)(5). Accordingly, Magellan is ordered to make additional revisions to\nits procedures specifying how it determines what other failures are deemed significant according\nto § 195.52(a)(5) and who is responsible for making such determinations.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.120(a),\nwhich states:\n§ 195.120 Passage of internal inspection devices.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each\nnew pipeline and each line section of a pipeline where the line pipe, valve,\nfitting or other line component is replaced; must be designed and\n2 Section 195.52 was amended on November 26. 2010, but the amendment does not affect the substance of the\nallegations contained in the Notice.\n\n\n\n3\nconstructed to accommodate the passage of instrumented internal\ninspection devices.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to implement 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.120(a) because they are unclear as to how its Magellan Pipeline Design Specs, Piping\nDesign, Section 1.0, which requires that pipelines be constructed to accommodate instrumented\ninternal inspection devices, fits into Magellan’s overall operations and maintenance procedures\nfor existing lines. Although Magellan’s procedures specify that internal inspection devices must\nbe accommodated when there have been “significant modifications” to its line pipe, they do not\ndefine what is a “significant modification.”\nIn its Response, Magellan stated that it had revised its Procedure 11.01-ADM-001, Management\nof Change Form Instructions, under Pipeline Integrity Review to state: “Review of surge and\noperating pressure changes. Assignment to appropriate integrity personnel for detailed review or\nevaluation of the change as it relates to DOT regulatory compliance: including 49 C.F.R.\n195.120 (passage of internal devices).”\nHowever, the Management of Change procedure revised by Magellan remains inadequate\nbecause it still does not address the problem cited in the Notice, namely, that Magellan’s\nprocedures do not make clear that whenever the company replaces line pipe or other line\ncomponent, the new line will be designed and constructed to accommodate internal inspection\ndevices. Since § 195.120(a) requires such devices if line pipe or a line component is “replaced,”\nit is essential that Magellan’s procedures define the term “significant modifications” in a way\nthat covers all pipe and line component replacements and meets the intent of the regulation.\nAccordingly, Magellan is hereby ordered to amend its procedures to indicate that a pipeline must\nbe made to accommodate internal inspection devices whenever line pipe or a line component is\nreplaced, according to the requirements of § 195.120.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which\nstates:\n§ 195.214 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance\nwith welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section\nIX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the\nwelding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the\nresults of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed\nwhenever the procedure is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s welding procedures (WE-ADM-003, WE-ADM-004, and\nWE-ADM-005, etc.) are inadequate for two reasons. First, they do not specify that all welding\nwill be performed using a qualified welding procedure; and second, they fail to require the use of\n\n\n\n4\nproper documentation, in the form of Magellan’s Form QW-482, to record the qualified welding\nprocedure that Magellan uses, as required under 49 C.F.R. § 195.214.\nMagellan stated in its Response that Procedure WE-ADM-003, Specification 100 – Construction\nand Fabrication of Pipelines and Related Piping Systems, had been revised to state that “all\nwelders shall be qualified in accordance with qualified welding procedures.” Pertaining to the\nissue related to Magellan Form QW-482, the Respondent argued that QW-482 was not a\nMagellan form, but indicated it had modified its welding procedures to identify the proper forms\nthat were to be used.\nMagellan’s response that all welders must be qualified in accordance with qualified welding\nprocedures still does not address the issue that the welding itself must be performed using a\nqualified welding procedure, as required under 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a). Further, identification of\nthe source of Form QW-482 still does not address the allegation that Magellan’s procedures fail\nto record qualified welding procedures on a form identified by the company’s written\nprocedures. Accordingly, Magellan must make additional revisions to its procedures to specify\nthat all welding on DOT-regulated pipelines must be done according to a qualified welding\nprocedure and that the use of such welding procedure must be documented on a form specified in\nits written procedures.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.222, which\nstates:\n§ 195.222 Welders: Qualification of welders.\n(a) Each welder must be qualified in accordance with section 6 of\n[American Petroleum Institute (API)] API 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure\nVessel Code, (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) except that a welder\nqualified under an earlier edition than listed in § 195.3 may weld but may\nnot re-qualify under that earlier edition.\n(b) No welder may weld with a welding process unless, within the\npreceding 6 calendar months, the welder has—\n(1) Engaged in welding with that process; and\n(2) Had one welded tested and found acceptable under section 9 of\nAPI 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s Welder/Welding Operator Performance Qualifications Form\n(07-Form-0721) is inadequate because even though it indicates that it covers welder qualification\nonly under ASME IX, in actual practice the form is used for both API 1104 and ASME IX\nqualifications. The Notice further alleged that the document indicates it is used to record welder\n“requalification,” while it is actually used for both qualifications and requalifications. Lastly, it\nalleged that the Magellan procedures pertaining to welder qualification are also inadequate\ninsofar as they do not reference any requirement to use 07-Form-0721.\n\n\n\n5\nIn its Response, Magellan acknowledged that its 07-Form-0721 form is used for both ASME IX\nand API-1104 requalifications. Magellan indicated that it had revised its procedures to state:\n“Forms for the prescribed code have been developed similar to that as shown in API 1104\nWelding of Pipelines and Related Facilities or Form QW-482 as shown in ASME Section IX\nWelding and Brazing Qualification latest DOT approved editions.”\nHowever, Respondent’s procedures still do not reflect that its 07-Form-0721 has been revised,\nnor has Magellan furnished PHMSA with a copy of the revised form itself. Therefore, I am\nunable to verify whether the new form states that it is used for both API-1104 and ASME IX\nwelder qualifications and requalifications, or that it includes all variables. Accordingly,\nMagellan must provide a copy of its procedures reflecting the revisions.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.228, which\nstates:\n§ 195.228 Welds and welding inspection: Standards of acceptability.\n(a) Each weld and welding must be inspected to insure compliance\nwith the requirements of this subpart. Visual inspection must be\nsupplemented by nondestructive testing.\n(b) The acceptability of a weld is determined according to the\nstandards in Section 9 of API 1104. However, if a girth weld is\nunacceptable under those standards for a reason other than a crack, and if\nAppendix A to API 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) applies\nto the weld, the acceptability of the weld may be determined under that\nappendix.\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s Maintenance Welding and Requirement for Welding and\nRequalification Procedures (WE-ADM-004, section 8, and WE-ADM-005, section 5) are\ninadequate because they fail to specify the standard being used by the company for visual\ninspection of welding and to require that such standard be consistent with the appropriate\nindustry standard being applied. In other words, it alleged that it is insufficient for the company\nto simply state that welds will be visually inspected using ASME IX requirements and welds\nperformed according to API 1104 will be inspected according to API 1104 requirements. The\nsame problem would apply to welding being performed under ASME IX.\nMagellan stated in its Response that Procedure WE-ADM-002, Scope and Definitions,\nParagraph 3.2, had been revised to include nondestructive examination requirements for\nConstruction and Maintenance Welding,3 but the table included in WE-ADM-002, Scope and\nDefinitions, paragraph 3.2 simply states that DOT-regulated piping will be 100% visually\ninspected.\n3 Additionally, Respondent states that this requirement is covered in three of its procedures: (1) WE-ADM-003,\nSpecification 100-Construction and Fabrication of Pipeline and Related Piping Systems, paragraph 8.2.1; (2) WE-\nADM-004, Specification 101 – Maintenance for Welding (Excluding Ethylene Pipelines), paragraph 8.4.1; and (3)\nWE-ADM-005, Specification 102 – Requirements for Welding and Requalification, paragraph 5.1.3.1.\n\n\n\n6\nHowever, the issue is not whether the welds are visually inspected but how they will be inspected\nunder the different welding standards being used, since Respondent uses both the API 1104 and\nASME IX standards. Therefore, Magellan must make additional revisions to it procedures to\nspecify the appropriate standards for visual inspection based on the welding standard being used.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation\nof its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. § 195.266, which\nstates:\n§ 195.266 Construction records.\nA complete record that shows the following must be maintained by\nthe operator involved for the life of each pipeline facility:\n(a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively\ntested, including the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected\nweld.\n(b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The amount, location; and cover of each size of pipe installed.\nThe location of each crossing of another pipeline.\nThe location of each buried utility crossing.\nThe location of each overhead crossing.\nThe location of each valve and corrosion test station.\nThe Notice alleged that the Magellan’s procedure for recordkeeping (Critical Drawings and Map\nList, 7.08-ADM-001, sections 1, 2) and its Project File Index document (07-Form-bbbb) for new\nconstruction are inadequate because they fail to require the maintenance of complete records\nunder § 195.266. Specifically, the procedures do not require the maintenance of records relating\nto overhead crossings and depth of cover. In addition, the Notice alleged that the company’s\nCritical Drawing List (7.08-ADM-001) for Part 195 records failed to include all of the\nrequirements of § 195.266, including depth of cover and overhead crossings.\nMagellan responded that 7.08-ADM-001, Critical Drawings and Map List, refers to its As Built\nand Documentation Requirements and the requirements were modified after the inspection.\nHowever, the operator’s procedures list the other § 195.266 construction records requirements in\nCritical Drawings and Map List, 7.08-ADM-001, section 2, but not those for overhead crossings\nand depth of cover. This omission needs to be corrected. Accordingly, Respondent must revise\nits procedures to ensure that all information specified in § 195.266 is covered by the procedures,\nincluding depth of cover and overhead crossings.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.302, which states:\n§ 195.302 General requirements.\n(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in § 195.305(b),\nno operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under\nthis subpart without leakage. In addition, no operator may return to\n\n\n\n7\nservice a segment of pipeline that has been replaced, relocated, or\notherwise changed until it has been pressure tested under this subpart\nwithout leakage.\nThe Notice alleged that the Magellan’s procedures for pressure testing (Pressure Testing, 7.03-\nADM-001, section 3.1.3) are inadequate because they fail to properly limit the operation of a\npipeline that has not been pressure tested without leakage. Specifically, it alleged that\nRespondent’s procedures failed to define the term “short segment” in terms of allowing the use\nof pre-tested pipe. To comply with § 195.302, pre-tested pipe that has not been pressure tested\non site should be restricted to repairs and not used for replacement of whole pipeline segments or\nfor rerouting a line.\nIn its Response, Magellan’s revised Pressure Testing, 7.03-ADM-001, paragraph 3.1.3, states:\n“However, no more than 250 feet of pretested pipe may be installed in the replacement repair\nsection without pressure testing the fabricated section together on site. Additionally, the girth\nwelds of the fabricated section including the tie-in welds must be verified by radiographic\ninspection.” The Respondent stated that the basis of the 250-feet limitation was a letter dated\nApril 21, 1994, from Ivan Huntoon, the Director, Central Region of the Office of Pipeline Safety\nto Williams Pipe Line Company.\nWhile the 1994 letter cited by Magellan may have been properly applied to a specific operator at\nthat time, PHMSA has issued another letter of interpretation that affects the needed revisions to\nMagellan’s procedures. On October 12, 2012, PHMSA issued an interpretation indicating that\nin-place pressure testing was needed where more than a single joint of pipe had been installed.\n4\nTherefore, Magellan must revise its procedure 7.03-ADM-001 to properly limit the operation of a\npipeline that has not been pressure tested without leakage.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.310, which states:\n§ 195.310 Records.\n(a) …\n(b) The record required by paragraph (a) of this section must include:\n(1) The pressure recording charts;\n(2) Test instrument calibration data;\n(3) The name of the operator, the name of the person responsible for\nmaking the test, and the name of the test company used, if any;\n(4) The date and time of the test;\n(5) The minimum test pressure;\n(6) The test medium;\n(7) A description of the facility tested and the test apparatus;\n4 Mr. Chris A. Paul, PHMSA Interp. No. PI-12-002 (October 17, 2012) (available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps).\n\n\n\n8\n(8) An explanation of any pressure discontinuities, including test\nfailures, that appear on the pressure recording charts; and\n(9) Where elevation differences in the section under test exceed 100\nfeet, a profile of the pipeline that shows the elevation and test sites over\nthe entire length of the test section.\n(10) Temperature of the test medium or pipe during the test period.\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s procedure 07-FORM-0013 specifies that pressure-testing\nrecords must be maintained, but does not include temperature charts required under\n§ 195.310(b)(10). Also, it alleged that Section 3.1.5 of Magellan’s procedure Pressure Testing,\n7.03-ADM-001, fails to provide for records indicating under what conditions “consideration” is\ngiven to removing a failed section of pipe for metallurgical analysis. The pressure-testing\nprocedure for pipe also allegedly fails to specify that any changes in pressures during the test\nmust be accounted for to validate the test.\nIn its Response, Magellan explained that it had revised its Form 07-FORM-0013 to include\ntemperature charts as part of the permanent hydrostatic testing records. PHMSA has reviewed\nthe revised form and I find it acceptable.\nAs for the records relating to metallurgical analysis of failed pipe section, Respondent stated that\nit had revised its procedure Pressure Testing, 7.03-ADM-001, paragraph 3.1.5, to address this\nissue. However, the version of the procedure provided in the company’s Response was the same\nas the one provided during the inspection. Additionally, the procedure refers to another\nMagellan procedure, Analysis of Pipe Cutouts, which was not provided in the Response so\ntherefore could not be reviewed. Respondent also indicated that it had revised the procedure to\nadd paragraph 3.8.8.1, which states: “For pressure drops or losses that don’t fall below specified\nminimum test pressure requirements, determine if pressure losses correspond with measured\ntemperature loss using industry accepted calculation method.” However, the revisions still fail to\nclarify under what conditions metallurgical analysis would occur.\nAccordingly, Respondent must provide the revised version of the procedure, Pressure Testing,\n7.03-ADM-001, paragraph 3.1.5, along with the Analysis of Pipe Cutout procedure, to address\nthe inadequacies discussed above.\nItem 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(4), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) …\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\n\n\n9\n(4) Determining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that\nwould require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to\nthe public if the facilities failed or malfunctioned.\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s procedures fail to set forth the criteria by which a process for\ndetermining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require an immediate\nresponse by the operator to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations.\nSpecifically, it alleged that while Magellan had verbally stated that the company treated its entire\npipeline system as an “immediate response” area, there is no written procedure to confirm this\nstatement.\nIn its Response, Magellan indicated that it had revised its procedure SIP-ADM-12.02, Emergency\nResponse, paragraph 1.1, to state: “All emergency situations require an immediate response to\nprotect the public and the environment.”\nThe revised procedure is still inadequate because § 195.402(c)(4) requires the operator to\nidentify areas of the pipeline system that require immediate response to prevent hazards to the\npublic if the facilities fail or malfunction, not just a commitment to immediately respond to\nemergency situations. Accordingly, Magellan must make additional revisions to procedure SIP-\nADM-12.02 to specify either that the entire Magellan pipeline is treated as an immediate\nresponse area or to identify those portions of the system that require immediate response under\n§ 195.402(c)(4).\nItem 18: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(b)(2), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating\nrecords that indicate—\n(1) . . .\n(2) Any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures\nunder § 195.402 apply.\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s procedures fail to specify retention requirements for\noperating records for emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures under\n§§ 195.402(d) and (e) apply. Magellan’s Form 13-FORM-0020, Abnormal Operating Condition\nReport, must have a specified retention period consistent with § 195.404(b)(2). Also, it alleged\nthat Respondent’s procedures fail to include the appropriate records retention requirements for\nall records required by Part 195, not just those with defined forms. In addition, it alleged that the\ncompany’s procedures fail to include a retention schedule for electronic records, just as with\npaper records.\nIn its Response, Magellan provided its revised form, 13-FORM-0020, Abnormal Operations\nReport, to include the statement on the bottom: “Retention: 3 year minimum in CMS.”\n\n\n\n10\nThis is still inadequate. Records pertaining to emergencies still are not addressed in the revised\nprocedures. Magellan must clearly specify in the text of its procedures the retention requirement\nfor these records similar to 7.08-ADM-001, Critical Drawings and Map List, paragraph 2.1.4,\nPipe Specifications, or on the Magellan Records Retention Schedule. Magellan must also revise\nits procedures to ensure that all electronic records have a retention requirement consistent with\nPart 195 requirements.\nItem 19: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420, which states:\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.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s Procedure 7.13-ADM-134, Annual Valve and Operator\nInspection, does not adequately define the valves that are subject to annual inspection under\n§ 195.420(b).\nIn its Response, Magellan submitted its revised Procedure 7.13-ADM-134, Annual Valve and\nOperator Inspection, paragraph 1.1, which states: “This procedure is applicable to all valves\nexcept those valves identified in Section 3.1 of 7.13-ADM-1035.” However, Section 3.1 of 7.13-\nADM-1035 does not identify any valves but Section 2.1 of that same procedure pertains to\nmainline valves, so the reference may simply reflect a clerical error. Magellan needs to correct\nprocedure 7.13-ADM-134 to specify that it is applicable to all valves except those valves\nidentified by Section 2.1 of 7.13-ADM-1035.\nItem 23: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.444, which states:\n§ 195.444 CPM leak detection.\nEach computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) leak detection system\ninstalled on a hazardous liquid pipeline transporting liquid in single phase\n(without gas in the liquid) must comply with API 1130 in operating,\nmaintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.\nThe Notice alleged that the Magellan’s procedure specified the use of CPM but its Start-up and\nShut-down Procedure, 9.02-ADM-002, and Normal Operations and Line Monitoring Procedure,\n9.02-ADM-017, did not have any references to performing CPM per API 1130, as required under\n§ 195.444.\n\n\n\n11\nIn its Response, Magellan created a new Procedure 9.02-ADM-081, Computational Pipeline\nMonitoring Procedure, that states in paragraph 2.1: “API 1130 is the guiding document for CPM\nsystem creation and maintenance.”\nMagellan’s revised language remains inadequate because it does not convey the requirement of\n§ 195.444. The industry standard reflected in API 1130 is not merely guidance but has been\nincorporated by reference into § 195.444 as a regulatory requirement that an operator must\ncomply with in operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping and dispatcher training of its\nsystem. Accordingly, Respondent must revise its language to convey that its CPM must comply\nwith the requirements of API 1130.\nItem 25: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.575, which states:\n§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what\ninspections, tests, and safeguards are required?\n(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline\nfrom other metallic structures, unless you electrically interconnect and\ncathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as a single unit.\n(b) You must install one or more insulating devices where electrical\nisolation of a portion of a pipeline is necessary to facilitate the application\nof corrosion control.\n(c) You must inspect and electrically test each electrical isolation to\nassure the isolation is adequate.\n(d) If you install an insulating device in an area where a combustible\natmosphere is reasonable to foresee, you must take precautions to prevent\narcing.\n(e) If a pipeline is in close proximity to electrical transmission tower\nfootings, ground cables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is\nreasonable to foresee fault currents or an unusual risk of lightning, you\nmust protect the pipeline against damage from fault currents or lightning\nand take protective measures at insulating devices.\nThe Notice alleged that the Magellan’s Corrosion Control Program Procedure 7.04-ADM-001,\nsection 2.9.4, is inadequate because it fails to specify that company personnel are required to\ndetermine, based on the criteria in § 195.571, if the casing and carrier pipe are metallically\nshorted prior to electrically isolating a segment. The Notice also sought to require Magellan to\nmodify its procedures to require additional testing if the casing-to-soil reading was elevated\nabove the native potential of carbon steel in soil. If the casing is determined to be electrolytically\nshorted, the Notice proposed that Magellan be required to have procedural requirements for\nremediating the condition and achieving electrical isolation.\nIn its Response, Magellan revised its Procedure 7.04-ADM-001, Corrosion Control Program,\nparagraph 2.9.4.2, to state: “If the casing potential is greater than .800 volts, the casing shall be\ntested to determine whether an electrolytic short to the carrier pipe is present. Corresponding\n\n\n\n12\nclassification data documenting the status of the casing shall be recorded in the Cathodic\nProtection Data Manager (CPOM). Refer to Shorted Casing Testing for more information.”\nRespondent also modified paragraph 2.9.4.4 to state: “Following internal inspection of a\npipeline, the resulting smart pig data will be integrated with and compared to the casing\ninformation in the corrosion control database. Where the carrier pipe within the casing exhibits\ncorrosion-caused metal loss, a risk evaluation will be conducted. If deemed necessary, based\nupon the risk evaluation and the severity of the metal loss, action will be taken to mitigate the\ncorrosion. Where practical this action will involve digging the ends of the casing and attempting\nto clear short by moving the pipe/casing or removal of water and replacement of end seals. If it\nis determined that it is impractical to clear the short, the casing/pipe interstice will be filled with\nhigh dielectric corrosion inhibiting material using NACE SP0200 as a guideline.”\nThese revisions, however, still do not address how Magellan will screen for electrolytically\nshorted casings on pipelines that are using the 100 mV polarization criterion. Also, Magellan did\nnot provide the Shorted Casing Testing procedure cited in Procedure 7.04-ADM-001, Corrosion\nControl Program procedure, paragraph 2.9.4.2 to PHMSA for review. Respondent’s revision\npertaining to risk assessment and potential actions to mitigate the corrosion do not mention\nassessing the rate of corrosion as part of the risk assessment or determining the reassessment\nintervals, particularly if corrosion is present and Magellan decides not to replace the segment.\nEven though § 195.575 requires electrical isolation, the Respondent’s procedures still does not\nspecify how the company would determine if it is impractical to clear a shorted casing or what\nbearing the location of the casing (if located in an HCA) would have on this decision.\nAccordingly, Magellan must make additional revisions to procedure 7.04-ADM-001 to address\nthe issue of screening for electrolytically shorted casings on pipelines using the 100 mV\npolarization criterion, and how the corrosion rate will be determined and used in the risk\nassessment and in determining reassessment intervals. Magellan also must make additional\nprocedural revisions to address how it will determine if it is impractical to clear a shorted casing,\nhow the location of the casing would impact this decision, and enhanced procedures for the use\nof dielectric material to inhibit a casing.\nItem 26: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures are inadequate to assure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities, by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.52(b) and (c), which state:\n§ 195.52 Telephonic notice of certain accidents.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Reports made under paragraph (a) of this section are made by\ntelephone to 800-424-8802 (in Washington, DC, 20590-0001 (202) 372-\n2428) and must include the following information:\n(1) Name and address of the operator.\n(2) Name and telephone number of the reporter.\n(3) The location of the failure.\n(4) The time of the failure.\n(5) The fatalities and personal injuries, if any.\n\n\n\n13\n(6) All other significant facts known by the operator that are relevant\nto the cause of the failure or extent of the damages.\n(c) Calculation. A pipeline operator must have a written procedure to\ncalculate and provide a reasonable initial estimate of the amount of the\nreleased product.5\nThe Notice alleged that Magellan’s Emergency Code Red Investigation Procedure, 9.02-ADM-\n011, page 4 table, revision 15, dated August 18, 2010, is inadequate because it indicated that in\nthe event of a failure, the spill quantity estimate will default to a specified fixed reporting\nvolume, based on the pressure range. For example, the Magellan procedure specified that\nrupture of a pipeline operating at a pressure of greater than 250 psig and having a diameter up to\n12 inches should to be reported as a 3,000-barrel spill. However, § 195.52(b), as amended\neffective November 26, 2010, requires an operator to have a written procedure to calculate and\nprovide a reasonable initial estimate of the amount of released product.\nIn its Response, Magellan revised its procedure to provide for an annual review of its release\nevents and make modifications to the Initial Estimated Release Amount Calculations Table to\nimprove the accuracy of the initial release reporting, based on actual experience.\nWhile the proposed procedural changes may result in an improvement in the company’s initial\nrelease reporting, the methodology still does not give adequate consideration to all of the factors\nthat should be considered in making a reasonable estimate of the release quantity, such as the","truncated":true,"body_characters":43599}