{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220125002M","title":"GENESIS PIPELINE USA, L.P. — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.302(a), 195.402(c)(4), 195.410(b)(2), 195.428, 195.432(b), 195.52(b)(1), 195.55(a)(2), 195.55(a)(6), 195.55(b)(3), 195.559, 195.56(b)(2), 195.561(b), 195.573(a)(2), 195.575(c), 195.579(a), 195.581(c)(2), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220125002m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220125002m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220125002m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220125002M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving GENESIS PIPELINE USA, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.302(a),  195.402(c)(4),  195.410(b)(2),  195.428,  195.432(b),  195.52(b)(1),  195.55(a)(2),  195.55(a)(6),  195.55(b)(3),  195.559,  195.56(b)(2),  195.561(b),  195.573(a)(2),  195.575(c),  195.579(a),  195.581(c)(2),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2012-04-19 and is reported as closed as of 2012-07-20. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220125002M_closure letter_07202012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125002M/220125002M_closure%20letter_07202012.pdf\n\n220125002M_closure letter_07202012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125002M/220125002M_closure%20letter_07202012_text.pdf\n\n220125002M_notice of amendment_04192012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125002M/220125002M_notice%20of%20amendment_04192012.pdf\n\n220125002M_notice of amendment_04192012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125002M/220125002M_notice%20of%20amendment_04192012_text.pdf\n\n220125002M_Operator_Response_05232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125002M/220125002M_Operator_Response_05232012.pdf\n\n220125002M_notice of amendment_04192012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 19, 2012\nMr. Mike Moore\nVice President Pipelines and Trucking Operations\nGenesis Pipeline USA, L.P.\n919 Milam, Suite 2100\nHouston, Texas 77002-5417\nCPF 2-2012-5002M\nDear Mr. Moore:\nFrom November 2, 2011 to February 16, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) inspected the Genesis Pipeline USA, L.P.\n(Genesis) operations and maintenance procedures in Alabama pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code. The written procedures are contained in the Genesis Energy Liquid &\nCO2 Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Procedures Manual referred to herein as the\nLOM&E.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified apparent inadequacies within Genesis’\nLOM&E, as described below:\n1. §195.52 Immediate notice of certain accidents. . . .\n. . . (b) Information required. Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section\nmust be made to the National Response Center either by telephone to 800–424–8802\n(in Washington, DC, 202–267–2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil and\nmust include the following information:\n. . . (1) Name, address and identification number of the operator.\nGenesis’ LOM&E written procedures for the immediate notice of certain accidents did not\nensure that all required information be reported. The procedure in LOM&E Section 4.6,\nAccident (and other) Reporting, did not require that the PHMSA assigned operator\nidentification number (OPID) to be included in reports to the National Response Center.\n\n\n\n2. §195.55 Reporting safety-related conditions.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall report in\naccordance with §195.56 the existence of any of the following safety-related\nconditions involving pipelines in service:\n. . . (2) Unintended movement or abnormal loading of a pipeline by environmental\ncauses, such as an earthquake, landslide, or flood, that impairs its serviceability.\nGenesis’ LOM&E written procedures for reporting safety-related conditions incorrectly\nlisted the requirements for reporting the unintended movement or abnormal loading of a\npipeline by environmental causes.\nThe procedure in LOM&E Section 3.1, Reporting Safety-Related Conditions, incorrectly\nstated the following (bold emphasis added): “The following conditions are safety-related\nconditions: - Movement or abnormal loading of a pipeline by environmental causes (such\nas earthquake, landslide or flood) that could affect its operation.\n” The regulatory\nreporting requirement is for “unintended movement” (not “movement”) that “impairs\nserviceability” (not which “could affect its operation”).\n3. §195.55 Reporting safety-related conditions.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall report in\naccordance with §195.56 the existence of any of the following safety-related\nconditions involving pipelines in service:\n. . . (6) Any safety-related condition that could lead to an imminent hazard and\ncauses (either directly or indirectly by remedial action of the operator), for purposes\nother than abandonment, a 20 percent or more reduction in operating pressure or\nshutdown of operation of a pipeline.\nGenesis’ LOM&E written procedures for reporting safety-related conditions did not\ncorrectly require the reporting of any safety-related condition that could lead to an\nimminent hazard and causes (either directly or indirectly by remedial action of the\noperator), for purposes other than abandonment, a 20 percent or more reduction in\noperating pressure or shutdown of operation of a pipeline.\nThe procedure in LOM&E Section 3.1, Reporting Safety-Related Conditions, incorrectly\nstated the following (bold emphasis added): “Any safety-related condition which results\nin a reduction of maximum operating pressure (MOP) by 20% or more or shutdown of a\npipeline.” The regulatory requirement is for a reduction in “operating pressure” not for a\nreduction in “maximum operating pressure.”\n4. §195.55 Reporting safety-related conditions.\n. . . (b) A report is not required for any safety-related condition that—\n. . . (3) Is corrected by repair or replacement in accordance with applicable safety\nstandards before the deadline for filing the safety-related condition report, except\nthat reports are required for all conditions under paragraph (a)(1) of this section\nother than localized corrosion pitting on an effectively coated and cathodically\nprotected pipeline.\nGenesis’ LOM&E written procedures for reporting safety-related conditions did not\nproperly state the reporting exception in §195.55(b)(3).\n2\n\n\n\nThe procedure in LOM&E Section 3.1, Reporting Safety-Related Conditions, incorrectly\nstated the following (bold emphasis added: “A safety-related condition is only reportable\nif: - It is not corrected by repair or replacement before the deadline for filing the Safety-\nRelated Condition Report (see “Deadline for Reporting Heading” below). However,\ngeneral corrosion requiring repair is always reportable. Localized corrosion pitting\nrequiring repair is reportable if it exists on an ineffectively coated line.” The regulatory\nrequirement is to report “all conditions under paragraph (a)(1) of this section other than\nlocalized corrosion pitting on an effectively coated and cathodically protected pipeline.”\n5. §195.56 Filing safety-related condition reports.\n. . . (b) The report must be headed “Safety-Related Condition Report” and provide\nthe following information:\n. . . (2) Date of report.\nGenesis’ LOM&E written procedures for reporting safety-related conditions did not\nensure the reporting of all the required information. The procedure in LOM&E Section\n3.1 Reporting Safety-Related Conditions did not require the date of report to be provided\nin the report.\n6. §195.302 General requirements.\n(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in §195.305(b), no operator may\noperate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under this subpart without\nleakage. In addition, no operator may return to service a segment of pipeline that has\nbeen replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been pressure tested\nunder this subpart without leakage.\nGenesis’ LOM&E pressure test written procedures were incomplete.\nThe procedure in LOM&E Section 2.17 Pipeline Integrity Testing conveyed that examples\ncould be found at the end of the section and that the examples would aid individuals in\ndetermining whether or not a pressure test volume change could be attributed to a\ntemperature change and, therefore, when to suspect a leak. But, the procedure did not\ninclude the referenced examples.\n7. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n. . . (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n. . . (4) Determining which pipeline facilities are located in areas that would require\nan immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if the\nfacilities failed or malfunctioned.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures did not list which pipeline facilities are located in areas that\nwould require an immediate response by the operator to prevent hazards to the public if\nthe facilities failed or malfunctioned.\nThe procedure in LOM&E Section 2.3 Immediate Response P/L Identification referenced\nGenesis’s Integrity Management Plan in describing immediate response pipelines.\nHowever, specific immediate response pipeline line segments were not identified in the\nIntegrity Management Plan, or in the LOM&E.\n3\n\n\n\n8. §195.410 Line markers.\n. . . (b) Line markers are not required for buried pipelines located—\n. . . (2) In heavily developed urban areas such as downtown business centers where—\n(i) The placement of markers is impractical and would not serve the purpose for\nwhich markers are intended; and\n(ii) The local government maintains current substructure records.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures did not properly explain where line markers were not\nrequired for buried pipelines in accordance with the regulations.\nThe procedure in LOM&E Section 2.5 Line Markers and Signs included the following:\n“Exceptions\nLine markers are not required in the following circumstances:\n When located in heavily developed areas such as downtown business centers.\n When placement creates a safety hazard\n When ineffective or difficult to maintain\n When located offshore”\nAdditionally, LOM&E Section 2.5 stated that markers were not required for the\ncircumstance of “…when ineffective or difficult to maintain.” These circumstances did\nnot describe the circumstances required of §195.410(b)(2).\n9. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n. . . (b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric\nand low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent\naccess to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan\nincluded in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3).\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures did not require certain physical integrity inspections of\natmospheric steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653 (API 653)\nto be conducted by, or be under the responsibility of, an authorized inspector. Also, the\nprocedures did not require certain documentation of monthly tank inspections.\n- LOM&E Section 2.11 Breakout Tank Inspection did not require visual external\ninspections to be conducted by an authorized inspector. API 653 Section 6.3.2.1\nrequired external inspections to be conducted by an authorized inspector “\n. . . at least\nevery five years or at the quarter corrosion rate life (RCA/4N) of the shell, whichever\nis less.” An authorized inspector is defined in API 653 Section 3.6 as “An employee\nof an authorized inspection agency and is certified as an Aboveground Storage Tank\nInspector per Appendix D of this standard.”\n- LOM&E Section 2.11 Breakout Tank Inspection did not require that an authorized\ninspector be used for determining the controlling thicknesses in each shell course\nwhen there are corroded areas of considerable size, as required by API 653 Section\n4.3.2.1.\n- LOM&E Section 2.11 Breakout Tank Inspection did not convey that formal internal\ninspections of steel atmospheric breakout tanks are required to be under the\nresponsibility of an authorized inspector as required by API 653 Section 6.4.1.2.\n4\n\n\n\n- LOM&E Section 2.11 Breakout Tank Inspection did not convey that the actual internal\ninspection interval shall be set to ensure that the bottom plate minimum thicknesses at\nthe next inspection are not less than the values listed in Table 6-1 of API 653.\n- Genesis’ Monthly Tank Inspection Report form (effective 09/17/2007) did not list\nrequired inspections for the chime, tank shell distortion, dike, signs of settlement, and\ncondition of the foundation. These inspection items are required by LOM&E Section\n2.11 Breakout Tank Inspection.\n10. §195.559 What coating material may I use for external corrosion control?\nCoating material for external corrosion control under §195.557 must—\n(a) Be designed to mitigate corrosion of the buried or submerged pipeline;\n(b) Have sufficient adhesion to the metal surface to prevent under film migration of\nmoisture;\n(c) Be sufficiently ductile to resist cracking;\n(d) Have enough strength to resist damage due to handling and soil stress;\n(e) Support any supplemental cathodic protection; and\n(f) If the coating is an insulating type, have low moisture absorption and provide\nhigh electrical resistance.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures did not include sufficient detail to provide adequate\nguidance in the selection of acceptable coatings for specific applications.\nLOM&E Section 2.1 Design & Construction and LOM&E Section 2.19 External\nCorrosion did not include sufficient detail to provide adequate guidance in the selection of\nacceptable coatings for the application of coatings at weld joints, for coating repair, for\nair-to-soil interfaces, and for new pipe. Moreover, the procedures did not adequately\ndescribe surface preparation for coatings, compatibility with existing coatings or the\nlimitations of application and use of coatings. This was evidenced by the inappropriate\nuse of hot melt repair sticks that were used to repair non-pinhole sized fusion bond epoxy\n(FBE) coating holidays at MP 24.239 on the Frisco City to I-65 Jct. line on July 18, 2011.\n11. §195.561 When must I inspect pipe coating used for external corrosion control?\n. . . (b) You must repair any coating damage discovered\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for pipe coating did not include the requirement to repair\ncoating damage discovered when inspecting pipe coatings used for external corrosion\ncontrol.\n12. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic\nprotection required by this subpart complies with §195.571:\n. . . (2) Identify not more than 2 years after cathodic protection is installed, the\ncircumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology is\npracticable and necessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of\nNACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for external corrosion control monitoring did not identify\nwhen a close-interval survey or comparable technology is practicable and necessary to\naccomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169.\n5\n\n\n\nLOM&E Section 2.19 External Corrosion stated, “Identify not more than 2 years after\ncathodic protection is installed, the circumstances in which a close interval survey or\ncomparable technology is practical and necessary to accomplish the objectives of\nparagraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169 – 2007.” This procedure parroted the regulation\nand did not convey any guidance or factors to consider in determining when a close\ninterval survey or comparable technology is practical and necessary.\n13. §195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections, tests, and\nsafeguards are required?\n. . . (c) You must inspect and electrically test each electrical isolation to assure the\nisolation is adequate.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for electrical isolation inspection and test procedures did\nnot establish how Genesis inspected and tested an electrical isolation to determine if it was\nadequate.\nLOM&E Section 2.19 External Corrosion did not describe the process required to be used\nto determine whether or not a casing is isolated or shorted from the carrier pipe. The\nprocedure mimicked the code.\n14. §195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that would\ncorrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take adequate steps to mitigate internal\ncorrosion.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for internal corrosion mitigation procedures did not\nestablish adequate guidance for how Genesis investigates the corrosive effects of the\nhazardous liquid it transports and how it would take mitigative actions.\nLOM&E Section 2.20 Internal Corrosion Control did not adequately describe the\ninvestigation of the corrosive effect of the liquid transported, or the steps Genesis has\ntaken, or will take, to mitigate internal corrosion. The internal corrosion monitoring and\nmitigation procedures were written in general terms and did not include, nor reference, the\nmaintenance pigging, inhibitor injection, coupon sampling, and program attribute target\nranges (inhibitor residuals, coupon loss rates, pigging frequencies, etc.) that Genesis uses.\n15. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what\ncoating material may I use?\n. . . (c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces,\nyou need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you\ndemonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate to the environment of\nthe pipeline that corrosion will—\n. . . (2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled\ninspection.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for the protection of the pipeline against atmospheric\ncorrosion and its Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection form had conflicting guidance.\n6\n\n\n\nThe requirements and guidance in LOM&E Section 2.19 External Corrosion Control and\nthe Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection form were not consistent as follows:\n- The LOM&E Section 2.19 External Corrosion Control on page 7 of 10 stated,\n“Except for pipelines in offshore splash zones, or soil-to-air interfaces, we need not\nprotect facilities that we demonstrate by test, investigation or experience that\ncorrosion will only be a light surface oxide or will not affect safe operation of the\npipeline before the next scheduled inspection;”\n- The LOM&E Section 2.19 External Corrosion Control on page 8 of 10 stated,\n“All components and piping in a pipeline system that are exposed to the atmosphere\nmust be painted or coated to prevent atmospheric corrosion. The painting or coating\nmust be maintained to ensure effectiveness.\n“If atmospheric corrosion is found during inspection, you must provide protection\nagainst corrosion as required by 195.58: Must clean and coat each portion of the\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere.”\n- The Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection form conveyed, in part, “The general repair\ncriterion is any damage that, in your opinion, may cause a release before the next\ninspection. Please inform maintenance of any coating damage that needs repair.”\n16. §195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n. . . (c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this\nsubpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control\nmeasures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist. You must\nretain these records for at least 5 years, except that records related to §§195.569,\n195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained for as long as the\npipeline remains in service.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for corrosion control records allowed Genesis to retain\ncertain corrosion control records for maximum times that were less than the required\n5-year record retention requirement in the regulations.\nLOM&E Section 2.2 Pipeline Maps, Records, Operating History, Documentation Table\nlisted “Document Retention Times” ranging from 2 to 3 years; i.e. less than 5 years.\n17. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems. (a) Except as\nprovided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines\nused to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 71/2months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief\nvalve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine\nthat it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is\nused.\nGenesis’ LOM&E procedures for overfill system inspection, testing, and maintenance did\nnot include, or reference, the written procedures that were being used.\n7\n\n\n\nLOM&E Section 2.10 Overpressure Protection Devices conveyed, “Overfill protection\nequipment shall be inspected, tested, and maintained at the same intervals, and in the\nsame exact manner, as overpressure protection devices.” However, the detailed\nprocedures that were actually used by Genesis personnel were found in the Operator\nQualification trainee modules, and were not included or referenced in the LOM&E.\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 30 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 Genesis Pipeline USA, L.P. maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/\nrevision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence\nconcerning this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2012-5002M and, for each document you\nsubmit, 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\n8\n\n220125002M_closure letter_07202012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 20, 2012\nMr. Jeffrey W. Gifford\nVice President, HSSE\nGenesis Energy\n919 Milam, Suite 2100\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 2-2012-5002M\nDear Mr. Gifford:\nFrom November 2, 2011 to February 16, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) inspected the Genesis Pipeline USA, L.P.\n(Genesis) written operations and maintenance procedures contained in the Genesis Energy\nLiquid & CO2 Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Procedures Manual (LOM&E),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code. As a result of the inspection, PHMSA\nissued a Notice of Amendment (NOA) on April 19, 2012.\nThe PHMSA Southern Region received your written response to the NOA on May 24, 2012.\nIn addition, we received certain revised amended procedures via email after we provided\nfeedback to Genesis relating to your response. Upon review of the aforementioned responses,\nwe find Genesis’ amended procedures adequate. This letter is to inform you that Genesis has\ncomplied with the terms of the NOA and that no further action is necessary with regards to the\nNOA. This case is now closed.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the NOA (CPF 2-2012-5002M) and not to any\nother PHMSA pending cases. Also be advised that nothing herein states or implies that the\nGenesis LOM&E meets the requirements of the federal pipeline safety regulations or that the\nLOM&E is approved. The pipeline system and LOM&E remain subject to inspection by\nPHMSA.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":25340}