{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220115011M","title":"DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-12-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(b)(4)(i), 195.452(b)(4)(ii), 195.452(f)(1), 195.588(b)(2)(i), 195.588(b)(3)(i), 195.588(b)(4)(i), 195.588(b)(4)(iii), 195.588(b)(5)(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115011m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115011m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115011m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220115011M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b)(4)(i),  195.452(b)(4)(ii),  195.452(f)(1),  195.588(b)(2)(i),  195.588(b)(3)(i),  195.588(b)(4)(i),  195.588(b)(4)(iii),  195.588(b)(5)(i). The case was opened on 2011-12-09 and is reported as closed as of 2012-02-28. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220115011M_closure letter_02282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115011M/220115011M_closure%20letter_02282012.pdf\n\n220115011M_closure letter_02282012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115011M/220115011M_closure%20letter_02282012_text.pdf\n\n220115011M_notice of amendment_12092011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115011M/220115011M_notice%20of%20amendment_12092011.pdf\n\n220115011M_notice of amendment_12092011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115011M/220115011M_notice%20of%20amendment_12092011_text.pdf\n\n220115011M_Operator Response and Request For Time Extension_01092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115011M/220115011M_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20For%20Time%20Extension_01092012.pdf\n\n220115011M_closure letter_02282012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 28, 2012\nMr. John Filiatrault\nVice President CO2 Supply and Pipelines\nDenbury Onshore, LLC\n5100 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 3000\nPlano, TX 75024\nCPF 2-2011-5011M\nDear Mr. Filiatrault:\nOn June 13-17, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) inspected the Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury) Liquid Integrity\nManagement Program (IMP) in Flowood, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code. As a result of the inspection, PHMSA issued a Notice of Amendment (NOA) to\nDenbury on December 9, 2011.\nThe PHMSA Southern Region received your initial response to the NOA by email on\nJanuary 6, 2012. You asked for clarification of Item 1B: 195.452(b)(4)(ii) and for a 30-day\nextension. On January 11, 2012, we responded with an email to explain that this item\naddressed integrity management related activities on how decisions are made by an operator\nto implement each element of the IMP. Procedures for pipeline personnel to follow the\nmanufacturer’s coating specifications and recommendations were cited as an example. We\nalso granted the 30-day extension.\nWe subsequently received and reviewed two letters from Denbury dated February 22 and 23,\n2012, responding to the NOA.\nThis letter is to inform you that Denbury has complied with the terms of the NOA and that no\nfurther action is necessary with regards to the NOA. This case is now closed.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the NOA (CPF 2-2011-5011M) and not to any\nother PHMSA pending cases. Also be advised that nothing herein states or implies that the\nabove described IMP meets the requirements of the federal pipeline safety regulations or that\n\n\n\nthe IMP is approved. The Denbury pipeline system and the IMP remain subject to inspection\nby PHMSA.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220115011M_notice of amendment_12092011_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 9, 2011\nMr. John Filiatrault\nVice President CO2 Supply and Pipelines\nDenbury Onshore, LLC\n5100 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 3000\nPlano, TX 75024\nCPF 2-2011-5011M\nDear Mr. Filiatrault:\nOn June 13-17, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the\nDenbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury) Liquid Integrity Management Program (IMP) in Flowood,\nMississippi.\nOn the basis of this inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nthe Denbury IMP as described below:\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n….(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity?\nEach operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n... (4) Include in the program a framework that---\n(i) Addresses each element of the integrity management program under paragraph\n(f) of this section, including continual integrity assessment and evaluation under\nparagraph (j) of this section; and\n(ii) Initially indicates how decisions will be made to implement each element.\n• Item 1A: §195.452(b)(4)(i)\nThe Denbury IMP framework did not address all elements of the integrity\nmanagement regulation under paragraph (f) of this section (i.e. §195.452).\nFor example, Denbury’s IMP procedures IMP-440 and IMP-410 for identifying and\ndocumenting high consequence area (HCA) changes use the management of change\n(MOC) process defined in Denbury’s operations and maintenance (O&M) manual but\nthe procedures had no instructions or reference to the MOC process for documenting\nHCA changes.\n\n\n\n• Item 1B: §195.452(b)(4)(ii)\nThe Denbury IMP framework did not address all elements in how decisions will be\nmade to implement each element.\nFor example,\n1. Denbury’s Direct Assessment & Corrosion Control (DACCP), Revision 4.0 dated\nJuly 2009, did not include instructions to meet the NACE SP0502, Section 5.7.1\nMitigation requirement to “take remediation activities to mitigate or preclude\nfuture external corrosion resulting from significant root causes.”\n2. Denbury’s Corrosion Manual, Section 3.6 Coating, did not instruct employees to\nfollow the manufacturer’s specifications and recommendations for coating the\npipeline.\n2. §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 drawn\nfrom results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance\ndata, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An\noperator must include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\nintegrity management program:\n(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a high consequence\narea;\n• Item 2: §195.452(f)(1)\nDenbury’s IMP did not include formalized written procedures for training field\npersonnel to identify an HCA or changes to an HCA using the National Pipeline\nMapping System (NPMS) and other information sources as necessary.\n3. §195.588 What standards apply to direct assessments?\n(b) The requirements for performing external corrosion direct assessment are as\nfollows:\n.... (2) Pre-assessment. In addition to the requirements in Section 3 of NACE SP0502\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3), the ECDA plan procedures for pre-\nassessment must include—\n(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for\nthe first time on a pipeline segment;\n.... (3) Indirect examination. In addition to the requirements in Section 4 of NACE\nSP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), the procedures for indirect\nexamination of the ECDA regions must include—\n(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for\nthe first time on a pipeline segment;\n.... (4) Direct examination. In addition to the requirements in Section F of NACE\nSP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), the procedures for direct\nexamination of indications from the indirect examination must include—\n(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for\n2\n\n\n\nthe first time on a pipeline segment;\n(iii) Criteria and notification procedures for any changes in the ECDA plan,\nincluding changes that affect the severity classification, and the time frame for direct\nexamination of indications; and\n.... (5) Post assessment and continuing evaluation. In addition to the requirements in\nSection 6 of NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), the procedures\nfor post assessment of the effectiveness of the ECDA process must include—\n(i) Measures for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of ECDA in addressing\nexternal corrosion in pipeline segments;\n• Item 3A: §195.588(b)(2)(i)\nDenbury’s Direct Assessment & Corrosion Control, Revision 4.0 dated July 2009,\nSection 5.1.1 Pre-Assessment, did not include provisions for applying more restrictive\ncriteria when conducting ECDA for the first time on a pipeline segment during the\npre-assessment phase.\n• Item 3B: §195.588(b)(3)(i)\nDenbury’s Direct Assessment & Corrosion Control, Revision 4.0 dated July 2009,\nSection 5.1.1 Pre-Assessment, did not include provisions for applying more restrictive\ncriteria when conducting ECDA for the first time on a pipeline segment during the\nindirect inspection phase.\n• Item 3C: §195.588(b)(4)(i)\nDenbury’s Direct Assessment & Corrosion Control, Revision 4.0 dated July 2009,\nSection 5.1.1 Pre-Assessment, did not include provisions for applying more restrictive\ncriteria when conducting ECDA for the first time on a pipeline segment during the\ndirect examination phase.\n• Item 3D: §195.588(b)(4)(iii)\nDenbury’s Direct Assessment & Corrosion Control, Revision 4.0 dated July 2009,\nSection 5.1.3 Direct Examination, did not have criteria and notification procedures for\nany changes in the ECDA plan, including changes that affect the severity\nclassification, the priority of the direct examination, and the time frame for direct\nexamination of indications.\n• Item 3E: §195.588(b)(5)(i)\nDenbury’s Direct Assessment & Corrosion Control, Revision 4.0 dated July 2009,\nSection 5.1.4 Post Assessment, did not include measures for evaluating the long-term\neffectiveness of ECDA in addressing external corrosion in pipeline segments.\nDenbury uses close interval surveys (CIS) and ACVG as the tools for performing the\nECDA assessment. All of the excavations performed on the Northeast Jackson Dome\n(NEJD) pipeline appear to have been driven by the ACVG results and not by the CIS\ndata. Therefore, Denbury should have measures to determine the long-term\neffectiveness of CIS as an ongoing tool for ECDA, especially in consideration of other\nfactors such as pipelines that are at deeper depths or under pavement where the CIS\nmay not be a valid tool for ECDA.\n3\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. 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). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the\ninadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your amended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice.\nThis period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies\nidentified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action\nwill be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Denbury Onshore, LLC maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Wayne T. Lemoi, Director,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region.\nIn correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2011-5011M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":12628}