{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125036W","title":"MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-11-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.132(b)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125036w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125036w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125036w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125036W","body":"Warning Letter involving MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.132(b)(3). The case was opened on 2012-11-14 and is reported as closed as of 2012-11-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125036W_Warning_11142012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125036W/420125036W_Warning_11142012.pdf\n\n420125036W_Warning_11142012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125036W/420125036W_Warning_11142012_text.pdf\n\n420125036W_Warning_11142012_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 14, 2012\nMr. Michael Pearson\nVice President, Technical Services\nMagellan Terminals Holdings, LP\nOne Williams Center, MD 27\nTulsa, OK 74172\nCPF 4-2012-5036W\nDear Mr. Pearson:\nDuring the month of October 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the construction of\nBreakout Tanks at East Houston Tank Terminal, Longhorn (Eastern) Reversal Project.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §195.132: Aboveground breakout tank.\n(b) For aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after October 2, 2000, compliance with\nparagraph (a) of this section requires one of the following:\n(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at the tank top approximating\natmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor space pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or\nnot greater than the pressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Standard 650.\nDuring the field inspection, PHMSA identified that one three-plate lap welded bottom joint located at the\ncenter area of the tank bottom (tank # 2502) did not comply with API 650. API 650, Section 5.1.5.4\nstates ‘(Lap welded bottom joint) Three-plate laps in tank bottoms shall be at least 300 mm (12 in.) from\neach other, from the tank shell, from butt-welded annular-plate joints, and from joints between annular\nplates and the bottom.’ Magellan field personnel as well as construction engineering group were\ninformed of the issue and agreed with the issue. As a result of this issue, Magellan warned its field\npersonnel to confirm every lap joint of all the breakout tanks to ensure that the lap joints comply with API\n650.\n\n\n\n2. §195.132 Aboveground breakout tank.\n(b) For aboveground breakout tank first placed in service after October 2, 2000, compliance with\nparagraph (a) of this section requires one of the following:\n(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at the tank top approximating\natmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor space pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or\nnot greater than the pressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Standard 650.\nThe Vacuum Box test report of tank# 2502 shows the light intensity as “Day light” in lieu of stating light\nintensity in “LUX. During the field inspection, PHMSA requested Magellan to provide the Vacuum Box\nTest Reports for Breakout Tank # 2502. PHMSA representative reviewed the report and found\nnoncompliance with API 650, Section 8.6.\nAPI 650, Section 8.6.7 states that “A minimum light intensity of 1000 LUX at the point of examination is\nrequired during the application of the examination and evaluation for leaks.” API 650, Section 8.6.10\nalso states that “A record or report of the test including a statement addressing temperature and light\nintensity shall be completed and furnished to the purchaser upon request.”\nThe Vacuum Box test report of tank# 2502 shows the light intensity as “Day light” in lieu of stating light\nintensity in “LUX” which must be minimum 1000 LUX. PHMSA confirmed that Magellan is not\nfollowing the Vacuum Box inspection procedure as described in API 650, Section 8.6 and subparagraph\n8.6.10\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided\nnot to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise\nyou to correct the item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Magellan being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to CPF 4-\n2012-5036W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to\nbeing made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must\nprovide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":5707}