{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520070023","title":"CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CENTRAL VALLEY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-11-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.457(a), 192.459, 192.463(a), 192.465(a), 192.467(c), 192.475, 192.477, 192.615(c), 192.705, 192.739.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520070023.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520070023.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520070023","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520070023","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CENTRAL VALLEY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.457(a),  192.459,  192.463(a),  192.465(a),  192.467(c),  192.475,  192.477,  192.615(c),  192.705,  192.739. The case was opened on 2007-11-16 and is reported as closed as of 2009-09-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520070023_FinalOrder_09142009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520070023/520070023_FinalOrder_09142009.pdf\n\n520070023_FinalOrder_09142009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520070023/520070023_FinalOrder_09142009_text.pdf\n\n520070023_FinalOrder_09142009_text.pdf\n\nSEP 14 2009\nMr. Duane Dudics, PE\nHES Manager\nVintage Production California LLC\n9600 Ming Ave., Suite 300\nBakersfield, CA 93311\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-0023\nDear Mr. Dudics:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand finds that Vintage Production California LLC has completed the actions specified in the\nNotice required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This case is now closed. Your\nreceipt of this Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7004 2510 0003 6895 8808]\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 )\nVintage Production California LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2007-0023\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 30 - August 2, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an inspection of the facilities and records of Vintage Production California LLC’s\n(Vintage or Respondent) pipeline system near Piru and Santa Paula, California. Respondent\noperates a gas gathering pipeline system which consists of 20-miles of pipeline located within\none or more High Consequence Areas (HCAs).1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 16, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.457(a), 192.463(a), 192.475(a)-(b),\n192.477, 192.705(a), and 192.739(a), and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted probable violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.459, 192.465(a), 192.467(c), and 192.615(c),\nand warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nVintage sought and received a brief extension to respond to the Notice. Vintage responded to the\nNotice by letters dated January 7, 2008, and July 23, 2009 (Responses). Respondent did not\ncontest the items in the Notice and provided explanations and information concerning the\ncorrective actions it had taken and planned to take in the future. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and has therefore waived its right to one.\n1 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 defines “high consequence areas.”\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a), which states:\n§ 192.457 External Corrosion Control: Buried or submerged pipelines\ninstalled before August 1, 1971.\n(a) Except for buried piping at compressor, regulator, and measuring\nstations, each buried or submerged transmission line installed before\nAugust 1, 1971, that has an effective external coating must be cathodically\nprotected along the entire area that is effectively coated, in accordance\nwith this subpart. For the purposes of this subpart, a pipeline does not\nhave an effective external coating if its cathodic protection current\nrequirements are substantially the same as if it were bare. The operator\nshall make tests to determine the cathodic protection current requirements.\nItem 1 alleged that Respondent violated § 192.457(a) by failing to cathodically protect certain of\nits buried pipelines. Specifically, it alleged that Vintage had not cathodically protected its\nSaticoy and Maulhardt gathering line systems.2 Both of these systems are Type A gathering\nlines.3\nRespondent did not contest this allegation, and provided information regarding the design,\npurchase, and installation of cathodic protection (CP) on the Saticoy and Maulhardt systems.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §\n192.457(a) by failing to cathodically protect the Saticoy and Maulhardt gathering systems.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a), which states:\n§ 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must\nprovide a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of\nthe applicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part . . .\n2 The Saticoy and Mulhardt gathering pipelines are in Class 2 and 3 areas, respectively. Pipeline locations are\nclassified according to their proximity to buildings intended for human occupancy or other places of public\nassembly, as more fully described in 49 C.F.R. § 192.5.\n3 Both pipelines qualify as Type A regulated onshore gathering pipelines under 49 C.F.R. § 192.8. Operators of\nsuch pipelines must comply with the majority of the Part 192 requirements, including the corrosion control\nrequirements in Subpart I – Requirements for Corrosion Control. 49 C.F.R. § 192.9. In its Response, Vintage did\nnot contest that prior to April 14, 2006, its pipelines were subject to the requirements of Part 192. Further, 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.209(c) states “[f]ailure of the respondent to respond in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section or, when\napplicable, paragraph (c) of this section, constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the allegations in the notice of\nprobable violation and authorizes the Associate Administrator, OPS, without further notice to the respondent, to find\nfacts to be as alleged in the notice of probable violation and to issue a final order . . .”\n\n\n\n3\nItem 3 alleged that Respondent violated § 192.463(a) by failing to provide a level of CP that\ncomplied with one or more of the applicable criteria contained in Appendix D of 49 C.F.R. Part\n192. Specifically, it alleged that Respondent did not provide the adequate levels of CP on its\nSouth Mountain Booster and Termo pipelines. Respondent’s annual CP reports for the two years\nprior to the inspection indicated insufficient CP levels.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation, and provided information regarding corrective actions\nand testing it had performed or planned to perform. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to provide a level of\nCP that complied with one or more of the applicable criteria contained in Appendix D of 49\nC.F.R. Part 192.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.475(a) and (b), which\nstate:\n§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(a) Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the\ncorrosive effect of the gas on the pipeline has been investigated and steps\nhave been taken to minimize internal corrosion.\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the\ninternal surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion. If internal\ncorrosion is found-\n(1) The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of\ninternal corrosion;\n(2) Replacement must be made to the extent required by the\napplicable paragraphs of §§ 192.485, 192.487, or 192.489; and\n(3) Steps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nItem 6 alleged that Respondent violated § 192.475(a) by failing to investigate the corrosive effect\nof gas it transported in its pipeline. Specifically, it alleged that Respondent did not have a process\nto monitor the corrosiveness of the gas it is transporting. OPS noted that Vintage’s Termo\ngathering system transports some carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, but that Respondent was unaware of\nhow the CO2 affected the pipelines.\nItem 6 also alleged that Respondent violated § 192.475(b) by failing to inspect the internal\nsurface of certain pipe removed from its system for evidence of corrosion. Specifically, it\nalleged that on January 18, 2007, Respondent removed and replaced a short section of its\nBarsdale gas gathering system, but failed to examine the interior surface of the removed pipeline\nfor signs of internal corrosion.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations, but provided information regarding procedures and\nequipment it had in place to investigate and minimize internal corrosion, including refresher\ntraining for its personnel. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a) by failing to investigate the corrosive effect of the\n\n\n\n4\ngas it was transporting in its pipeline, and that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by\nfailing to inspect the internal surface of a section of pipeline that was removed.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477, which states:\n§ 192.477 Internal corrosion control: Monitoring.\nIf corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means\nmust be used to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to minimize\ninternal corrosion. Each coupon or other means of monitoring internal\ncorrosion must be checked two times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 7 ½ months.\nItem 7 alleged that Respondent violated § 192.477 by failing to use or periodically monitor\ncoupons or other suitable means to determine the effectiveness of steps taken to minimize\ninternal corrosion. Specifically, it alleged that Respondent’s Termo gas gathering system, which\ncontains a high concentration of CO2, is not monitored for internal corrosion. The Notice further\nalleged that Respondent had no process in place to monitor internal corrosion of the pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation and provided information regarding corrective actions\nit had taken. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.477 by failing to use or periodically monitor coupons or other suitable means to\ndetermine the effectiveness of steps taken to minimize internal corrosion.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a), which states:\n§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface\nconditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for\nindications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting\nsafety and operation.\nItem 9 alleged that Respondent violated § 192.705(a) by failing to patrol certain pipeline right-\nof-ways for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and\noperation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vintage had not patrolled the rights-of-way for\nthe Saticoy and Maulhardt systems since it started operating those systems in 2006.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation and provided information regarding the corrective\nactions it had taken. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) by failing to patrol the Saticoy and Maulhardt pipeline rights-of-\nway for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and\noperation.\n\n\n\n5\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ninspections and tests to determines that it is-\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control\nor relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\nItem 10 alleged that Respondent violated § 192.739(a) by failing to subject its relief devices to\ninspections and tests at the intervals required.\nRespondent did not contest the violation, but provided information indicating that it had\nsubsequently performed the required relief device inspections, and described additional safety\nmeasures it had taken. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to subject its relief devices to inspections and tests at\nthe intervals required.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns\nor operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has satisfactorily\ncompleted the following actions specified in the Proposed Compliance Order:\n1. 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a) -- With regard to the violation described in Item 1 of the\nNotice, Respondent stated it has completed installation of CP systems on its\nMaulhardt and Saticoy pipelines, and outlined the steps it took to complete the testing\nand installation of those systems.\n\n\n\n6\n2. 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 3 of\nthe Notice, Respondent stated it has provided adequate CP to its Termo pipeline and\nSouth Mountain Booster, and outlined the steps it took to complete testing and\ninstallation of CP systems.\n3. 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a)-(b) -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 6\nof the Notice, Respondent stated it has added procedures and equipment to investigate\ninternal corrosion, and has taken additional steps to monitor and minimize internal\ncorrosion, including providing operations and maintenance refresher training for its\npersonnel.\n4. 49 C.F.R. § 192.477 -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 7 of the\nNotice, Respondent stated it has installed corrosion coupon holders and has taken\nadditional steps to monitor gas corrosivity and to monitor the effectiveness of its\n“corrosion inhibitor treatment program.”\n5. 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 9 of\nthe Notice, Respondent began performing and keeping records of walking patrols in\nSeptember 2007. Respondent stated it will continue performing the patrols.\n6. 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 10 of\nthe Notice, the Responses provided information and records showing that Respondent\nhad performed the required relief device inspections, and also provided information\nregarding additional relief devices it had installed.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 4, 5, and 8 the Notice alleged probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192,\nbut did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n1. 49 C.F.R. § 192.459 (Notice Item 2) – Respondent’s alleged failure to examine\nexternal corrosion on exposed pipeline and failure to examine a replaced section of\npipeline for signs of external corrosion.\n2. 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) (Notice Item 4) – Respondent’s alleged failure to monitor\nCP levels on portions of its pipeline as required.\n3. 49 C.F.R. § 192.467(c) (Notice Item 5) – Respondent’s alleged failure to include\na casing in its annual CP survey to confirm it was electrically isolated from the gas\ncarrier pipe.\n\n\n\n7\n4. 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) (Notice Item 8) – Respondent’s alleged failure to produce\nrecords confirming it had met with public officials regarding emergency plans as\nrequired.\nVintage Production California did not provide any information in its Responses regarding the\nwarning items, but stated that “these items are also being addressed.” Having reviewed the\nrecord, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.463,\n192.465(a), 192.467(c), and 192.615(c) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to\ncorrect such conditions. If OPS finds a violation for these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n_____________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17609}