{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520090008","title":"PACIFIC COAST ENERGY COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-01-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.625(f), 192.706(b), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520090008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PACIFIC COAST ENERGY COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.625(f),  192.706(b),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2009-01-08 and is reported as closed as of 2012-08-23. Proposed civil penalty: $98,800. Assessed civil penalty: $70,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520090008_closure letter_08232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_closure%20letter_08232012.pdf\n\n520090008_closure letter_08232012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_closure%20letter_08232012_text.pdf\n\n520090008_Final Order_04032012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_Final%20Order_04032012.pdf\n\n520090008_Final Order_04032012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_Final%20Order_04032012_text.pdf\n\n520090008_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01082009.pdf\n\n520090008_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01082009_text.pdf\n\n520090008_operator response_07302009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090008/520090008_operator%20response_07302009.pdf\n\n520090008_Final Order_04032012_text.pdf\n\nAPR 03 2012\nMr. Halbert S. Washburn\nDirector and Chief Executive Officer\nBreitBurn Energy Partners, LP\n515 South Flower Street, Suite 4800\nLos Angeles, CA 90071\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-0008\nDear Mr. Washburn:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one\nof the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of\n$70,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by BreitBurn Energy Partners, LP, to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided 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: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Mark L. Pease, Executive Vice President and CEO, BreitBurn Energy Partners, LP\nMs. Martha Brock, EH&S Manager, BreitBurn Energy Partners, LP\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164203423532]\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 )\nBreitBurn Energy Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 5-2009-0008\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 18 and 19, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of BreitBurn Energy\nPartners, LP (BreitBurn or Respondent), for its Pico natural gas gathering line in Los Angeles,\nCalifornia. BreitBurn is an independent oil and gas limited partnership engaged in the\ndevelopment of oil and gas assets in several states, including California, Wyoming, Florida,\nMichigan, Indiana and Kentucky.1 The Pico pipeline is approximately six miles long and lies\nentirely within a populated High Consequence Area.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to BreitBurn\nEnergy Corporation, an affiliate of Respondent, by letter dated January 8, 2009, a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that BreitBurn had violated\n49 C.F.R. §§ 192.625, 192.706 and 192.745 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $98,800\nfor the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations.\nBreitBurn responded to the Notice by letter dated July 30, 2009 (Response) and submitted\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing\nadditional information by email on August 27, 2009, and in April - May 2011.3 The company\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 http://www.breitburn.com/ (last accessed 3/9/12).\n2 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.903.\n3 On file with PHMSA.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural\nodorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the\nlower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a\nnormal sense of smell.\n(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line\nin a Class 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of\nparagraph (a) of this section unless:….\n(c) ….\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with\nthis section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in\nair at which the odor becomes readily detectable….\nThe Notice alleged that BreitBurn violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to confirm that the\nodorant in its distribution line had the proper concentration by conducting periodic sampling of\ncombustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at\nwhich the odor becomes readily detectable.\nIn its Response, BreitBurn argued that the pipeline was exempt from § 192.625 because it was a\nType B gathering line.\n4 Regulated gathering lines are classified as either Type A or Type B by\n49 CFR § 192.8(b). Type A gathering lines must comply with most requirements of Part 192\nthat apply to transmission lines, including § 192.625(f),\n5 while Type B lines are subject only to\nthe six requirements of § 192.9(d). BreitBurn stated that the line qualified as a Type B gathering\nline under § 192.8(b) because it was operated at less than 20% of the line’s specified minimum\nyield strength (SMYS). BreitBurn argued that the pipeline was therefore only subject to the\nlimited requirements of § 192.9(d), and did not need to comply with § 192.625.\n6\nType A lines include those that are “metallic and the [maximum allowable operating pressure]\n(MAOP) produces a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS” and that are located in a Class\n2, 3, or 4 location. Type B lines include those which are “metallic and the MAOP produces a\nhoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS,\n” 7\nand are commonly referred to as “low-stress”\nlines. The classification of an onshore gathering line is therefore determined by its maximum\nallowable operating pressure, not its actual operating pressure. BreitBurn stated that the Pico\nline operated at less than 20% SMYS, but did not offer any proof that the line qualified as a low-\nstress line.\n4 Response at 1.\n5 49 CFR § 192.9(c).\n6 Response at 2.\n7 49 CFR § 192.8(b).\n\n\n\n3\nIn fact, it appears that prior to this proceeding, BreitBurn had never accurately determined the\nSMYS of the Pico line. The SMYS of a steel pipe is defined as the manufacturer’s specification,\nor if the manufacturer’s specification is not known, it is determined in accordance with\n§ 192.107(b).8 If the tensile properties of pipe are unknown, § 192.107(b)(1) requires that the\npipe be tensile tested in accordance with Part 192, Appendix B, Section II-D, to calculate SMYS.\nThe Pico gas gathering line consists of segments of pipe with three different diameters (4, 6, and\nstrength and wall thickness of the 12-inch diameter pipe used in one segment of the pipeline.\n12 inches).9 BreitBurn did not have a record of the manufacturer’s specifications of the yield\nTo determine the yield strength of the pipe, BreitBurn extracted one sample of pipe for\nmetallurgical testing,\n10\nbut Appendix B required the company to take multiple samples. PHMSA\nestimates that there are approximately 150 lengths of 12-inch diameter pipe, so Appendix B\nwould require sampling of at least 20 lengths to determine the yield strength. Because such\ntesting had not been conducted, the default SMYS for this pipeline, in accordance with\n§ 192.107(b)(2), was 24,000 psi.\nIn addition to knowing the SMYS, an operator must know the hoop stress produced by the\nMAOP to determine whether a gathering line is Type A or Type B. To calculate the hoop stress\nproduced by the MAOP, the wall thickness of the pipe is needed, but BreitBurn did not have a\nrecord of the wall thickness of its 12-inch diameter pipe. If the wall thickness of a pipe is\nunknown, § 192.109 requires that the wall thickness of at least 10 lengths of pipe be measured at\nquarter points on one end.\nBreitBurn extracted one sample to measure the wall thickness,\n11\nbut this did not satisfy the\nregulatory requirement. Because the pipe’s wall thickness was unknown, the hoop stress could\nnot be calculated. It was therefore impossible to know whether the MAOP produced a hoop\nstress of less than 20% of SMYS. This pipeline is made of steel and is entirely within a class 4\nhave to comply with all of Part 192 (other than § 192.150 and Subpart O), including the\nlocation.12 Therefore, the Pico pipeline would be considered a Type A gathering line, and would\nodorization requirements in § 192.625.\nHowever, this particular Type A gathering line transported gas to a gas dehydration plant which\nreceived gas without an odorant before May 5, 1975.\nexemption in § 192.625(b)(2)(iii), and was not required to odorize its gas or assure the proper\nconcentration of odorant. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\n13 Therefore, the pipeline fell under the\n8 49 CFR § 192.3.\n9 Email from Alison Wong, BreitBurn, to Hossein Monfared, PHMSA (April 29, 2011) (on file with PHMSA).\n10 Metallurgical Analysis of Gas Line Pipe Section (Butterfield Vault), Ref: BreitBurn Energy PO: 1001905, Kars’\nAdvanced Materials, Inc., August 4, 2009, at 1(on file with PHMSA).\n11 Email from Alison Wong, BreitBurn, to Hossein Monfared, PHMSA (May 5, 2011) (on file with PHMSA).\n12 A pipeline’s class location is determined by the criteria in 49 CFR § 192.5. A class 4 location is defined as an\narea where buildings with four or more stories above ground are prevalent.\n13 Email from Alison Wong, BreitBurn, to Hossein Monfared, PHMSA (April 7, 2011) (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\n4\nBreitBurn did not violate § 192.625(f) because the pipeline was exempt from this requirement\nunder § 192.625(b)(2)(iii). Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that this Item be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However,\nin the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with\n§ 192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector\nequipment must be conducted—\n(a) ….\n(b) In Class 4 locations, at intervals not exceeding 4½ months, but at\nleast four times each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that BreitBurn violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct leakage\nsurveys on the Pico gathering line at the required intervals. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nBreitBurn failed to conduct any leakage surveys on the pipeline during the three years prior to\nthe PHMSA inspection.\nIn its Response, BreitBurn reiterated its claim that because the pipeline operated at less than 20%\nSMYS, it was a Type B gathering line exempt from this regulation.\n14\nAs discussed in Item 1\nabove, however, the Pico gas gathering line is a Type A gathering line as defined in § 192.8(b),\nand therefore must comply with most of the regulations in Part 192, including § 192.706. In\naddition, BreitBurn claimed that even if the pipeline did need to comply with § 192.706, it only\nneeded to conduct annual, rather than quarterly, leakage surveys since the company odorized its\n15\ngas.\nRespondent is correct that under the language of § 192.706, it is only required to conduct annual\nleakage surveys, but it failed to perform even those. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct any leakage\nsurveys on the Pico gas gathering line during the three years prior to the PHMSA inspection.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that BreitBurn violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, it alleged\nthat BreitBurn failed to inspect the mainline block valves on its pipeline for the three years prior\n14 Response at 2.\n15 Id.\n\n\n\n5\nto the PHMSA inspection. In its Response, BreitBurn again contended that because the line\noperated at less than 20% SMYS, the pipeline only needed to comply with the six requirements\nof § 192.9(d), and not with this regulation.\nhad inspected and partially operated each valve.\n16 BreitBurn did not offer any evidence to show that it\nAs discussed above, however, the Pico gas gathering line is a Type A gathering line as defined in\n§ 192.8(b), and therefore must comply with § 192.745. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $98,800 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), for failing to conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily\ndetectable. For the reasons discussed above, I found that the Pico gas gathering line is exempt\nfrom the requirements of § 192.625. Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.706, for failing to conduct any leakage surveys on the Pico gas gathering line\nduring the three years prior to the OPS inspection. Respondent is not exempt from this\nrequirement, as discussed above. The prompt detection of leaks is critical for public safety in a\nhigh population area such as this. For this reason, leakage surveys must be done at least once a\nyear, even when gas is odorized. Respondent did not present any evidence or argument for a\nreduction of the penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.706.\n16 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n6\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), for failing to inspect and partially operate each transmission line valve\nthat might be required during any emergency at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year. Respondent is not exempt from this requirement, as discussed above.\nInspecting valves that might be needed in an emergency in a high population area is critical for\npublic safety. Respondent did not present any evidence or argument for a reduction in the\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $70,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $70,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.625(f), 192.706, and 192.745(a), respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. As for Item 1, I have withdrawn the allegation of violation so there is no\nneed to include the proposed compliance terms for this Item in the Compliance Order.\nAs for Items 2 and 3, 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 § 192.706 (Item 2), within 60 days of issuance of\nthis Final Order, Respondent must conduct a leakage survey of the Pico gas gathering\nline and provide documentation to the Director. Additionally, BreitBurn must\ninstitute a tracking system to ensure that leakage surveys are conducted at least once\neach calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, per the requirements of\n§ 192.706.\n\n\n\n7\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.745(a) (Item 3), within 60 days of issuance\nof this Final Order, Respondent must inspect and partially operate all valves that\nmight be required during an emergency and provide documentation to the Director.\nAdditionally, BreitBurn must institute a tracking system to ensure that any valves that\nmay be required during an emergency are inspected at least once each calendar year,\nbut at intervals not exceeding 15 months, per the requirements of § 192.745(a).\n3. It is requested that BreitBurn maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. The company should report costs in two categories: 1) total costs\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and\n2) total costs associated with replacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520090008_closure letter_08232012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 23, 2012\nMs. Martha Brock\nEH&S Manager\nPacific Coast Energy Company\n515 South Flower Street, Suite 4800\nLos Angeles, CA 90071\nCPF 5-2009-0008\nDear Ms. Brock:\nOn January 8, 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to BreitBurn Energy Corporation L. P. (now Pacific Coast Energy Company) a Notice\nof Probable Violation with a Proposed Civil Penalty and a Proposed Compliance Order as\nreferenced above. On April 3, 2012, The Final Order in this case was issued. This Final Order\nassessed a civil penalty of $70,000 and required the leakage survey and valve maintenance to\nbe conducted within 60 days. The civil penalty was paid on April 12, 2012 and the required\nleakage survey and valve maintenance records were received on May 24, 2012. Based\npayment of the civil penalty and on our review of the documentations you provided on May\n24, 2012, it has been determined that you have completed the conditions of this Final 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,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 H. Monfared\n\n\n\n5.9 Sample NOA Closure Letter (7/5/95)\n\n520090008_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 8, 2009\nMs. Martha Brock\nEH&S Manager\nBreitburn Energy Corporation L.P.\n515 South Flower Street, Suite 4800\nLos Angeles, CA 90071\nCPF 5-2009-0008\nDear Ms. Brock:\nOn June 18 and 19, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of Breitburn Energy Corp.’s Pico Gas gathering pipeline facilities\nin Los Angeles, California.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. § 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this section,\neach operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor\nbecomes readily detectable. Operators of master meter systems may comply with\nthis requirement by—\n\\\n\n\n\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to confirm that\nthe gas contains odorant.\nBreitburn odorizes its gas at the West Pico production site but did not conduct periodic\nsampling of combustible gases using as instrument capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which odor becomes readily detectable. Breitburn could not\nproduce documentation to demonstrate that the gas has the proper concentration of\nodorant and that the line has been periodically sniff tested. If Breitburn elects to odorize\nits gas, then it needs to provide documentation of odorant concentration as well and\nperiodically sniff test the line.\n2. §192.706 Transmission Lines, Leakage Survey\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in the case of\na transmission line which transports gas in conformity with §192.625 without an\nodor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector equipment must be\nconducted-\n(b) In Class 4 locations, at intervals not exceeding 4 1/2 months, but at least four\ntimes each calendar year.\nBreitburn did not conduct a leakage survey in the last three calendar years. Per\n§192.706, when the pipeline is located in Class 4 location, the operator must conduct a\nleakage survey at least 4 times each calendar year and at intervals not exceeding 4½\nmonths. The entire line is located in a Class 4 location.\n3. §192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency\nmust be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year.\nBreitburn did not inspect the mainline bock valves on its sales line for the last three\ncalendar years. Each transmission mainline block valve that may be required during any\nemergency must be inspected at least once each calendar year not exceeding 15 months.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $98,800.00.00 as follows:\n2\n\n\n\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $28,800.00\n2 $35,000.00\n3 $35,000.00\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, and 3, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Breitburn\nEnergy Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and\nmade a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance 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 information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2009-0008 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 H. Monfared (#120785)\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n3\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Breitburn Energy Corporation a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Breitburn\nEnergy Corporation with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to testing of the odorant in the gas\nline, Brietburn must test the odorant in the line and produce documentation to\ndemonstrate that the gas has the proper concentration of odorant.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to leakage surveys in a Class 4\nlocation, Breitburn must conduct a leakage survey and provide documentation to this\noffice. Additionally, Brietburn must institute a tracking system to ensure that leak\nsurveys are conducted at least four times each calendar year not exceeding 4½ months\nper the requirements of 49 CFR §192.706.\n3. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of main line block\nvalves, Breitburn must inspect and partially operate all valves that might be required\nduring an emergency and provide inspection documentation to this office. Additionally,\nBrietbrun must institute a tracking system to ensure that any valves that may be required\nduring an emergency are inspected at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year per the requirements of 49 CFR §192.745.\n4. Within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order, Breitburn must complete the above\nitems, and submit the required documentation and procedures to the Director,\nWestern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, 12300\nWest Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado 80228.\n5. Breitburn shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":31943}