{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520047002","title":"NUEVO ENERGY CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-09-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(c)(2), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(8), 195.452(g)(4), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(i)(2), 195.452(i)(4), 195.452(j)(5), 195.452(k).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520047002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520047002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520047002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520047002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NUEVO ENERGY CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(c)(2),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(f)(8),  195.452(g)(4),  195.452(i)(1),  195.452(i)(2),  195.452(i)(4),  195.452(j)(5),  195.452(k). The case was opened on 2004-09-23 and is reported as closed as of 2007-05-22. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520047002_final order_05222007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520047002/520047002_final%20order_05222007.pdf\n\n520047002_FinalOrder_052207.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520047002/520047002_FinalOrder_052207.pdf\n\n520047002_FinalOrder_052207.pdf\n\no\nU.S. Deportment\nof Tronsportoiion\nPipeline ond Hozordous\nMoleriols Sofety Administrolion\nMAY 2 2 it?;;\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashinoton. D.C. 20590\nDavid Rouse\nManager, WBU-Offshore\nEnvironmental, Health and Safety\nPlains Exploration and Production Energy (formerly Nuevo Energy company)\n201 S. Broadway\nOrcutt, CA93455-4606\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-7002\nDear Mr. Rouse:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and finds that you have completed the\nactions specified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The Final\nOrder also finds that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in\nthe Notice of Amendment. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes\nservice under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\nhln\nr-) ft \"*' I' La---\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ncc: Chris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region, PHMSA\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTEI)\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nPlains Exploration and Production Co.,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 5-2004-7002\nFINAL ORDER\nOn February 24 and25,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (\"PHMSA\"), Office of Pipeline Safety, conducted an\non-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records in Orcutt, California.l\nAs a result of the inspectiono the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by\nletter dated September 23,2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order,\nand Notice of Amendment (\"Notice\"). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452 and ordering\nthat Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. S 190.237,that Respondent amend its written procedures\nfor its integnty management program (\"IMP\").\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 19,2004 (\"Response\"). Respondent\ndid not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective\nmeasures it had taken in response to the allegations and submitted copies of its amended\nprocedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. $ 190.213 and U.S.C. g 60122,I find that Respondent violated the\nfollowing sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:\nNotice ltem la:\n49 C.F.R $ 195.452 (c) - What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(l) An operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\nI At the time of the audit, the Respondent was known as Nuevo Enerry Company (Nuevo). Since the time of the\naudit, Nuevo merged with and is now referred to as Plains Exploration and Production (PXP) Company.\n\n\n\n2\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An operator must\nassess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following methods. The methods an\noperator selects to assess low frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded\npipe susceptible to longitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam integrity\nand of detecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.\n(A) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion and deformation\nanomalies including dents, gouges and grooves;\nGeometry tools were not used in conjunction with the metal loss in-line inspection (ILI) tools\nin the assessment relied upon for the baseline assessment plan (BAP). Geometry tools\nprovide more precise information about the pipe anomalies that the ILI tools detect. This\nmore detailed information enables an operator to properly assess the integrity of the line pipe.\nIn the alternative, the operator could have only run a metal loss ILI tool and treated all dent\nindications as immediate repairs.\nNotice Item 2c:\n49 C.F.R S 195.452(f) - What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn integrity management program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from\nresults of the integnty assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and\nevaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its wriuen integrity management\nprogram:\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integnty issues raised by the assessment\nmethods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this section);\n(8) A process for review of integrify assessment results and information analysis by a\nperson qualified to evaluate the results and information (see paragraph (hX2) of this\nsection).\nRespondent did not adequately assess ILI data through comparison of the datata actrnl dig\nresults. This comparison allows operators to determine ILI tool tolerance. Understanding\ntool tolerance is necessary for assessing anomalies reported in the ILI data and establishing\ncriteria for effective remedial action.\nNotice Item 5a:\n49 C.F.R. S 195.452(h) - What actions must an operator take to address integrity\nissues?\n(l) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous\nconditions that the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or information\nanalysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions\nand remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to\ndemonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the condition is\n\n\n\nunlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integnty of the pipeline. A reduction in\noperating pressure cannot exceed 365 days without an operator taking further remedial\naction to ensure the safety of the pipeline.\nRespondent did not adequately analyze the ILI results, which revealed a large number of\nanomalies and variance in anomaly severities in the Irene Platform to LOGP pipeline\nassessment.\nNotice Item 8\n49 C.F.R S 195.452(i) - What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator\ntake to protect the high consequence area?\n(l) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the\nconsequences ofa pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These\nmeastres include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identi$ additional\nactions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Such actions may include,\nbut are not limited to, implementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring\nof cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter inspection\nintervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifring the systems that monitor\npressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to personnel on response\nprocedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and adopting other\nmanagement controls.\nRespondent did not establish criteria or procedures for implementing preventive and\nmitigative measures to enhance public safety and/or environmental protection in its IMP.\nNotice ltem 9\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take\nto protect the high consequence area?\n(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator determines that an\nEFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high consequence areain the event of\na hazardous liquid pipeline release, an operator must install the EFRD. In making this\ndetermination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factors--the swiftness of\nleak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate\nof potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or pipeline profile, the\npotential for ignition, proximity to power sources, location of nearest response personnel,\nspecific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high consequence are4 and benefits\nexpected by reducing the spill size.\nRespondent failed to implement a proper process for determining placement of Emergency\nFlow Restricting Devices (EFRDs). Respondent relied solely on the original construction\ndesign to determine EFRD placement.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to the violations listed in Items 1u2c,5a,\n8, and 9. Under 49 U.S.C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director, Western Region,\nPHMSA, has indicated that Respondent provided information in response to the Notice,\ndemonstrating that Respondent has taken corrective measures to bring the specified portions of\nRespondent's IMP into compliance with the Part 195 requirements. Since compliance has been\nachieved with respect with these violations, it is unnecessary to include compliance terms in this\nOrder.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nWithrespectto Items 1b,242b,4,5b,6, 7a,7b,l0a, l0b, and 10c, theNotice alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent's IMP procedures and proposed to require amendment of the\nRespondent's IMP to comply with requirements of Part 195. In its Response, Respondent did\nnot contest the proposed Notice of Amendment and submitted copies of its amended IMP\nprocedures, which the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, reviewed. The Director determined\nthat Respondent had satisfactorily amended its procedures. Based on the results of this review, I\nfind that Respondent's original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate but that\nRespondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to issue an\norder directing amendment.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to items lc and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these items are\nconsidered warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(c)(l)(A)(2) (Notice Item lc) - failure to document, prior to implementing\nany changes to the plan, any modification of the plan, and reasons for the modification.\nRespondent failed to document the baseline assessment plan changes and associated justification.\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(gxl)- (4) (Notice Item 3)- failure to document the process of integration\nof information, which facilitates information analysis. Respondent's IMP did not require\ndocumentation of the process of information integration.\nWith regards to Notice Item lc, Respondent maintained that at the time of inspection, its record\nof revision section included justification for revisions. Respondent presented information in its\nResponse showing it had modified its IMP to address the Notice Item 3. Having considered such\ninformation, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. $ 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. $\n195.452(c)(lXA)(2) (Notice Item lc) and49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(s)(1)-(4) (Notice Item 3) have\noccurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS\nfinds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to\n\n\n\nfuture enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nDate Issued\nAssociate Admini strator\n\n520047002_final order_05222007.pdf\n\no\nU.S. Deportment\nof Tronsportoiion\nPipeline ond Hozordous\nMoleriols Sofety Administrolion\nMAY 2 2 it?;;\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashinoton. D.C. 20590\nDavid Rouse\nManager, WBU-Offshore\nEnvironmental, Health and Safety\nPlains Exploration and Production Energy (formerly Nuevo Energy company)\n201 S. Broadway\nOrcutt, CA93455-4606\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-7002\nDear Mr. Rouse:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and finds that you have completed the\nactions specified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The Final\nOrder also finds that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in\nthe Notice of Amendment. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes\nservice under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\nhln\nr-) ft \"*' I' La---\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ncc: Chris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region, PHMSA\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTEI)\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nPlains Exploration and Production Co.,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 5-2004-7002\nFINAL ORDER\nOn February 24 and25,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (\"PHMSA\"), Office of Pipeline Safety, conducted an\non-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records in Orcutt, California.l\nAs a result of the inspectiono the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by\nletter dated September 23,2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order,\nand Notice of Amendment (\"Notice\"). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452 and ordering\nthat Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. S 190.237,that Respondent amend its written procedures\nfor its integnty management program (\"IMP\").\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 19,2004 (\"Response\"). Respondent\ndid not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective\nmeasures it had taken in response to the allegations and submitted copies of its amended\nprocedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. $ 190.213 and U.S.C. g 60122,I find that Respondent violated the\nfollowing sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:\nNotice ltem la:\n49 C.F.R $ 195.452 (c) - What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(l) An operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\nI At the time of the audit, the Respondent was known as Nuevo Enerry Company (Nuevo). Since the time of the\naudit, Nuevo merged with and is now referred to as Plains Exploration and Production (PXP) Company.\n\n\n\n2\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An operator must\nassess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following methods. The methods an\noperator selects to assess low frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded\npipe susceptible to longitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam integrity\nand of detecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.\n(A) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion and deformation\nanomalies including dents, gouges and grooves;\nGeometry tools were not used in conjunction with the metal loss in-line inspection (ILI) tools\nin the assessment relied upon for the baseline assessment plan (BAP). Geometry tools\nprovide more precise information about the pipe anomalies that the ILI tools detect. This\nmore detailed information enables an operator to properly assess the integrity of the line pipe.\nIn the alternative, the operator could have only run a metal loss ILI tool and treated all dent\nindications as immediate repairs.\nNotice Item 2c:\n49 C.F.R S 195.452(f) - What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn integrity management program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from\nresults of the integnty assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and\nevaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its wriuen integrity management\nprogram:\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integnty issues raised by the assessment\nmethods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this section);\n(8) A process for review of integrify assessment results and information analysis by a\nperson qualified to evaluate the results and information (see paragraph (hX2) of this\nsection).\nRespondent did not adequately assess ILI data through comparison of the datata actrnl dig\nresults. This comparison allows operators to determine ILI tool tolerance. Understanding\ntool tolerance is necessary for assessing anomalies reported in the ILI data and establishing\ncriteria for effective remedial action.\nNotice Item 5a:\n49 C.F.R. S 195.452(h) - What actions must an operator take to address integrity\nissues?\n(l) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous\nconditions that the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or information\nanalysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions\nand remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to\ndemonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the condition is\n\n\n\nunlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integnty of the pipeline. A reduction in\noperating pressure cannot exceed 365 days without an operator taking further remedial\naction to ensure the safety of the pipeline.\nRespondent did not adequately analyze the ILI results, which revealed a large number of\nanomalies and variance in anomaly severities in the Irene Platform to LOGP pipeline\nassessment.\nNotice Item 8\n49 C.F.R S 195.452(i) - What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator\ntake to protect the high consequence area?\n(l) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the\nconsequences ofa pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These\nmeastres include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identi$ additional\nactions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Such actions may include,\nbut are not limited to, implementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring\nof cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter inspection\nintervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifring the systems that monitor\npressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to personnel on response\nprocedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and adopting other\nmanagement controls.\nRespondent did not establish criteria or procedures for implementing preventive and\nmitigative measures to enhance public safety and/or environmental protection in its IMP.\nNotice ltem 9\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take\nto protect the high consequence area?\n(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator determines that an\nEFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high consequence areain the event of\na hazardous liquid pipeline release, an operator must install the EFRD. In making this\ndetermination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factors--the swiftness of\nleak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate\nof potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or pipeline profile, the\npotential for ignition, proximity to power sources, location of nearest response personnel,\nspecific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high consequence are4 and benefits\nexpected by reducing the spill size.\nRespondent failed to implement a proper process for determining placement of Emergency\nFlow Restricting Devices (EFRDs). Respondent relied solely on the original construction\ndesign to determine EFRD placement.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to the violations listed in Items 1u2c,5a,\n8, and 9. Under 49 U.S.C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director, Western Region,\nPHMSA, has indicated that Respondent provided information in response to the Notice,\ndemonstrating that Respondent has taken corrective measures to bring the specified portions of\nRespondent's IMP into compliance with the Part 195 requirements. Since compliance has been\nachieved with respect with these violations, it is unnecessary to include compliance terms in this\nOrder.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nWithrespectto Items 1b,242b,4,5b,6, 7a,7b,l0a, l0b, and 10c, theNotice alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent's IMP procedures and proposed to require amendment of the\nRespondent's IMP to comply with requirements of Part 195. In its Response, Respondent did\nnot contest the proposed Notice of Amendment and submitted copies of its amended IMP\nprocedures, which the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, reviewed. The Director determined\nthat Respondent had satisfactorily amended its procedures. Based on the results of this review, I\nfind that Respondent's original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate but that\nRespondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to issue an\norder directing amendment.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to items lc and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these items are\nconsidered warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(c)(l)(A)(2) (Notice Item lc) - failure to document, prior to implementing\nany changes to the plan, any modification of the plan, and reasons for the modification.\nRespondent failed to document the baseline assessment plan changes and associated justification.\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(gxl)- (4) (Notice Item 3)- failure to document the process of integration\nof information, which facilitates information analysis. Respondent's IMP did not require\ndocumentation of the process of information integration.\nWith regards to Notice Item lc, Respondent maintained that at the time of inspection, its record\nof revision section included justification for revisions. Respondent presented information in its\nResponse showing it had modified its IMP to address the Notice Item 3. Having considered such\ninformation, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. $ 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. $\n195.452(c)(lXA)(2) (Notice Item lc) and49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(s)(1)-(4) (Notice Item 3) have\noccurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS\nfinds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to\n\n\n\nfuture enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nDate Issued\nAssociate Admini strator","truncated":false,"body_characters":24264}