{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420141008W","title":"GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-08-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.905(a), 192.925(b)(1)(ii), 192.947(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420141008w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420141008w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420141008w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420141008W","body":"Warning Letter involving GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.905(a),  192.925(b)(1)(ii),  192.947(b). The case was opened on 2014-08-26 and is reported as closed as of 2014-08-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420141008W_Warning_08262014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420141008W/420141008W_Warning_08262014.pdf\n\n420141008W_Warning_08262014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420141008W/420141008W_Warning_08262014_text.pdf\n\n420141008W_Warning_08262014_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 26, 2014\nMr. Gary Kaiser\nSr. Vice President\nGeorgia Pacific, LLC\nP.O. Box 3333\nCrossett, AR 71635\nCPF 4-2014-1008W\nDear Mr. Kaiser:\nOn multiple occasions between December 2013 and May 7, 2014, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code were onsite and inspected your records and procedures in the field office located in\nCrossett, AR. Records and procedures for your Integrity Management Plan were inspected in\nPasadena, TX.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission pipeline\nsystem are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high consequence\nareas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in § 192.903 to\nidentify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to its entire\npipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual portions of the\npipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity management program which\nmethod it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipeline system. The description\nmust include the potential impact radius when utilized to establish a high consequence\narea. (See appendix E.I. for guidance on identifying high consequence areas.)\nGeorgia Pacific, LLC (GP) failed to properly identify a high consequence area as defined in\n§192.905(a) and appendix E.I. Specifically, the operator failed to apply the axial extension of\n\n\n\nthe potential impact circle along the length of the pipeline, from the outermost edge of the first\npotential impact circle containing either an identified site or 20 or more buildings intended for\nhuman occupancy, to the outermost edge of the last contiguous potential impact circle\ncontaining such sites.\nOn April 14, 2014, GP provided this office the results of the review and a properly identified\nMap of their HCA on the 14-inch pipeline system which include changes in the total length of\nthe HCA.\n2. § 192.947 What records must an operator keep?\nAn operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that demonstrate\ncompliance with the requirements of this subpart. At minimum, an operator must\nmaintain the following records for review during an inspection.\n(b) Documents supporting the threat identification and risk assessment in accordance\nwith § 192.917;\n§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and use the\nthreat identification in its integrity program?\n(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that follows ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, section 5, and considers the identified threats for each covered segment. An\noperator must use the risk assessment to prioritize the covered segments for the baseline\nand continual reassessments (§§ 192.919, 192.921, 192.937), and to determine what\nadditional preventive and mitigative measures are needed (§ 192.935) for the covered\nsegment.\nGP failed to maintain documentation of a risk assessment process that should include the\nevaluation of data collected during the HCA and threat identification process. Additionally the\nrisk assessment should include the identification of conditions and location specific events that\ncould lead to a pipeline failure along with the probability and consequences of each event. GP\nonly provided a meeting agenda which does not show a structured set of weighting factors to\nindicate the relative level of influence of each risk assessment component.\n3. §192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion Direct Assessment\n(ECDA)?\n(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to assess the threat\nof external corrosion must follow the requirements in this section, in ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7), section 6.4, and in NACE SP0502-2008\n(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7). An operator must develop and implement a\ndirect assessment plan that has procedures addressing preassessment, indirect\nexamination, direct examination, and post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline\ncoating damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA with other\n\n\n\ninformation from the data integration (§ 192.917(b)) to evaluate the covered segment\nfor the threat of third party damage, and to address the threat as required by §\n192.917(e)(1).\n(1) Preassessment. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4\nand NACE SP0502-2008, section 3, the plan's procedures for preassessment must\ninclude-\n(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting ECDA for the\nfirst time on a covered segment; and\n(ii) The basis on which an operator selects at least two different, but complementary\nindirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region. If an operator utilizes an indirect\ninspection method that is not discussed in Appendix A of NACE RP0502-2002, the\noperator must demonstrate the applicability, validation basis, equipment used,\napplication procedure, and utilization of data for the inspection method.\nGP failed to correctly select ECDA regions. After reviewing the assessment data it was clear\nthat Georgia Pacific identified and assessed only one region in the HCA area. The HCA area has\na section with cased piping. This cased piping area should be treated as another region to be\nassessed properly.\nAccording to section 3.5.1.1.2 of NACE SP0502-2008, the pipeline operator should consider all\nconditions that could significantly affect external corrosion when defining criteria for ECDA\nregions.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this letter.\nFailure to do so will result in Enterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC being subject to additional\nenforcement action.\n\n\n\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 4-2014-1008W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":8049}