{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420185028","title":"CRESCENT MIDSTREAM, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-11-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(f)(1), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(6), 195.573(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185028.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185028.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185028","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420185028","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CRESCENT MIDSTREAM, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(f)(1),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(f)(6),  195.573(d). The case was opened on 2018-11-05 and is reported as closed as of 2019-11-06. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420185028_Closure Letter_11062019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_Closure%20Letter_11062019.pdf\n\n420185028_Closure Letter_11062019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_Closure%20Letter_11062019_text.pdf\n\n420185028_Final Order_08082019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_Final%20Order_08082019.pdf\n\n420185028_Final Order_08082019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_Final%20Order_08082019_text.pdf\n\n420185028_NOPV PCO_11052018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_NOPV%20PCO_11052018.pdf\n\n420185028_NOPV PCO_11052018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_NOPV%20PCO_11052018_text.pdf\n\n420185028_Operator Response to Notice_12052018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185028/420185028_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12052018.pdf\n\n420185028_Final Order_08082019_text.pdf\n\nAugust 8, 2019\nMr. John Grier\nChief Executive Officer\nCrimson Midstream, LLC\n3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 300\nLong Beach, California 90806\nRe: CPF No. 4-2018-5028\nDear Mr. Grier:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Crimson Gulf, LLC, a division of\nCrimson Midstream, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. David Blakeslee, Regulatory Compliance Manager, Crimson Midstream, LLC, 3760\nKilroy Airport Way, Suite 300, Long Beach, California 90806\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCrimson Gulf, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2018-5028\na division of Crimson Midstream, LLC )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom October 23, 2017 through May 25, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nCrimson Gulf, LLC (Crimson or Respondent), in Louisiana. Crimson Gulf, LLC, a division of\nCrimson Midstream, LLC, operates the Crimson Gulf pipeline, an 885-mile crude oil pipeline in\nsouthern Louisiana.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 5, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Crimson had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nCrimson Midstream, LLC, on behalf of Crimson, responded to the Notice by letter dated\nDecember 5, 2018 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but\nprovided additional information regarding the alleged violations and the corrective actions it had\ntaken. Crimson requested that, in light of the prompt response to issues raised during the\ninspection as well as the clarifications and documentation provided, the items be withdrawn or\nthe Notice be converted to a Notice of Amendment. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Nov. 5, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5028\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a\nhigh consequence area;\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see\nparagraph (g) of this section);\n(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the\nhigh consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section);\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3) by failing to conduct an\nanalysis that integrated all available information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and\nconsequences of a failure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Crimson failed to identify\nbreakout tank (BOT) #2051 when it conducted its facilities risk analysis. After the inspection,\nCrimson submitted a revised Integrity Management Plan (IMP) to PHMSA that included BOT\n#2051; however, Crimson’s revised IMP still failed to identify a process for preventative and\nmitigative measures to protect high consequence areas for BOT #2051.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but did request that the Notice be\nconverted to a Notice of Amendment (NOA). OPS has broad discretion in selecting the most\nappropriate enforcement tool in each case. There are no statutory or regulatory requirements that\nOPS use a particular tool in particular circumstances.2 In this case, I do not believe that the\nagency abused its discretion or violated any regulation in choosing to issue a Notice of Probable\nViolation, as opposed to an NOA or other enforcement tool.\nIn its Response, Crimson also requested that, given its prompt response to issues raised during\nthe inspection, the violation be withdrawn. Crimson’s remedial efforts after the inspection,\nhowever, do not absolve it from its duty to comply with regulatory obligations.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3) by failing to conduct an analysis that integrated all available information\nabout the integrity of the entire pipeline and consequences of a failure.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) ….\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to\n2 Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., CPF No. 4-2007-1004, 2011 WL 1303341*13 (Feb. 11, 2011).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5028\nPage 3\nensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with\nAPI Recommended Practice 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nHowever, this inspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control\nprocedures established under § 195. 402(c)(3) why complying with all or\ncertain operation and maintenance provisions of API RP 651 is not\nnecessary for the safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect the\ncathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of the aboveground breakout\ntank (BOT #2051) to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with\nAPI RP 651. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Crimson did not have procedures for the\nmonitoring of cathodic protection and corrosion on breakout tank bottoms because it erroneously\nconcluded that it had no breakout tanks.3 After the inspection, Crimson submitted revised O&M\nprocedures on corrosion control, but failed to reference API RP 651 or include why complying\nwith all or certain provisions of it is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nIn its Response, Crimson alleged that BOT #2051 had been inspected pursuant to API RP 651,\nbut acknowledged that the records were not available to PHMSA at the time of the inspection.\nSince that time, Crimson stated that it has updated its procedures to accurately reflect activities\nthat were being performed pursuant to NACE RP 0169 and NACE RP 0285. Despite Crimson’s\nassertion that it had properly inspected BOT #2051, it provided insufficient evidence to support\nthis claim. In its Response, Crimson provided inspection records that did not include conversion\nof readings. Further, in its previous and revised procedures, Crimson did not include reference to\nAPI RP 651, or provide a justification for why it is not required. Instead, Crimson incorrectly\ncited to standards for underground storage tanks, despite the fact that its only breakout tank,\nBOT #2051, is an aboveground breakout tank.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(d) by failing to inspect the cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the\nbottom of the aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system\nare in accordance with API RP 651.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(f)(3) and 195.573(d), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\n3 See Crimson’s Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Corrosion Control Procedures (Jan. 16, 2018), Section 6:\nCathodic Protection on Breakout Tanks, pg. 4 (noting that “[t]he Crimson Gulf System does not contain Break-out\nTanks therefore this section does not apply but prior to putting Break-out Tanks into service this section will be\ndeveloped”).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5028\nPage 4\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(3) (Item 1), Respondent must\nperform an evaluation of risk on BOT #2051 which considers the nature and\ncharacteristics of the product transported, release volume, overland transport\nincluding topography, drainage flow paths, and containment, and water transport\nwhich includes evaluating the effects of stream conditions, flow characteristics, and\nseasonal conditions.4\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(d) (Item 2), Respondent must ensure its\nprocess and procedures to inspect the cathodic protection system for the aboveground\nbreakout tank, and the operations and maintenance of the system, are in accordance\nwith API RP 651. In the alternative, Crimson must document and justify why\ncompliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API RP 651 is\nnot necessary. Further, Crimson must ensure all procedures relating to the external\ncorrosion control of BOT #2051 reference correct, applicable NACE standards.\n3. Items 1 and 2 of this Compliance Order must be completed within 60 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\n4 Crimson is also encouraged, but not ordered, to reevaluate its UT inspection assessment interval to determine if a\nshorter assessment cycle should be implemented as a preventative and mitigative measure.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-5028\nPage 5\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nAugust 8, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420185028_Closure Letter_11062019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 6, 2019\nLarry Alexander\nPresident\nCrimson Gulf, LLC\n3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite # 300\nLong Beach, California 90806\nCPF 4-2018-5028\nDear Mr. Alexander:\nOn August 8, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Crimson Gulf, LLC (Crimson), a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order. Crimson submitted the required information on October 10, 2019. Based\non our review of the documentation provided, it has been determined that Crimson has complied\nwith the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":15037}