{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520090009","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 192.465, 192.609, 192.619, 192.739, 192.745.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520090009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PACIFIC COAST ENERGY COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465,  192.609,  192.619,  192.739,  192.745. The case was opened on 2009-01-08 and is reported as closed as of 2011-04-08. Proposed civil penalty: $105,000. Assessed civil penalty: $105,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520090009_FinalOrder_03212011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_FinalOrder_03212011.pdf\n\n520090009_FinalOrder_03212011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_FinalOrder_03212011_text.pdf\n\n520090009_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01082009.pdf\n\n520090009_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01082009_text.pdf\n\n520090009_operator response_07302009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_operator%20response_07302009.pdf\n\n520090009_FinalOrder_03212011_text.pdf\n\nMAR 21 2011\nMr. Halbert S. Washburn\nChief Executive Officer\nBreitburn Energy Corporation L.P.\n515 South Flower Street, Suite 4800\nLos Angeles, CA 90071\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-0009\nDear Mr. Washburn:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings\nof violation and assesses a civil penalty of $105,000. It further finds that Breitburn Energy\nCorporation L.P. has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0073 9659]\n\n\n\n2\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBreitburn Energy Corporation L.P., ) CPF No. 5-2009-0009\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nIn June 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P.\n(Breitburn Energy or Respondent) in Seal Beach, California. Breitburn Energy operates a 5-mile\npipeline facility in that area on behalf of the Seal Beach Gas Processing Joint Venture.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 8, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207,\nthe Notice proposed finding that Breitburn Energy had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.609,\n192.619, 192.739, and 192.745 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $105,000 for the\nalleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures\nto correct the alleged violations.\nBreitburn Energy responded to the Notice by letter dated July 30, 2009 (Response). The\ncompany did not contest the allegations of violation, but offered explanations for its actions, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n3\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current\npower source must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, to insure that it is operating.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465 by failing to inspect a\nrectifier that provides impressed cathodic protection for its pipeline at least six times a year, with\nintervals not exceeding 2 ½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during the three years\nprior to the PHMSA inspection, Breitburn Energy only inspected that rectifier once a year, i.e.,\nduring the annual pipe-to-soil survey conducted by its third-party contractor.\nIn its Response, Breitburn Energy did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained\nthat the employee responsible for maintaining its records had taken or destroyed all of those\ndocuments when he left the company. Respondent further stated that it was confident that the\nrequired inspection had occurred, even though it could not provide any of the required\ndocumentation.\n1\nBreitburn Energy has an obligation to retain a record of each rectifier inspection for at least 5\nyears.\ninspections occurred. Moreover, Breitburn Energy acknowledges that the employee responsible\nfor conducting the inspections and maintaining the records made false statements about the\nperformance of his duties. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465 by failing to inspect the rectifier at least six times per\nyear, with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, for a period of three years.\n2 Without any rectifier inspection records, Breitburn Energy cannot demonstrate that the\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.609, which states:\n§ 192.609 Change in class location: Required study.\nWhenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class\nlocation for a segment of an existing steel pipeline operating at hoop stress\nthat is more than 40 percent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress\ncorresponding to the established maximum allowable operating pressure\nfor a segment of existing pipeline is not commensurate with the present\nclass location, the operator shall immediately make a study to determine:\n(a) The present class location for the segment involved.\n(b) The design, construction, and testing procedures followed in the\noriginal construction, and a comparison of these procedures with those\nrequired for the present class location by the applicable provisions of this\npart.\n(c) The physical condition of the segment to the extent it can be\n1 Response at 2.\n2 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c).\n\n\n\n4\nascertained from available records;\n(d) The operating and maintenance history of the segment;\n(e) The maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding\noperating hoop stress, taking pressure gradient into account, for the\nsegment of pipeline involved; and\n(f) The actual area affected by the population density increase, and\nphysical barriers or other factors which may limit further expansion of the\nmore densely populated area.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.609 by failing to immediately\nmake a study to determine the present class location for a portion of its pipeline. In particular,\nthe Notice alleged that Breitburn Energy’s records indicated the entire pipeline is in a Class 1\nlocation, even though a short section of its pipeline is in a Class 3 location.\nIn its Response, Breitburn Energy explained that it has consistently maintained that a 0.97-mile\nportion of transmission line in its system is in a Class 3 location, and it included a copy of its\n2008 Class Location Survey for its pipeline, which shows that this line is in a Class 3 location.3\nRespondent also explained that it has prepared an additional Class Location Survey and included\nit in its pipeline manual as an addendum.\nThe Class Location Survey submitted by Breitburn Energy is dated June 24, 2008, several days\nafter the OPS on-site safety inspection occurred in this case. Therefore, that report does not\nshow that Respondent had conducted a class location study prior to the inspection. Breitburn\nEnergy did not submit any other evidence demonstrating that it had previously performed such\nstudy. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent has\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.609 by failing to conduct a class location study.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.619: Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.4\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may\noperate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the\nlowest of the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the\nsegment was tested after construction as follows:\n(i) . . . .\n(ii) For steel pipe operated at 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage or more, the\ntest pressure is divided by a factor determined in accordance with the\nfollowing table:\n3 Class Location Survey, attached to Response.\n4 Section 192.619 was amended by the final rule published on October 17, 2008 (73 FR 62148).\n\n\n\n5\nFactors\nClass location Segment Installed\nSegment Installed\nSegment Converted\nBefore (Nov 12, 1970)\nafter (Nov 11, 1970)\nunder § 192.14\n1 1.10 1.10 1.25\n2 1.25 1.25 1.25\n3 1.40 1.50 1.50\n4 1.40 1.50 1.50\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by operating its pipeline at a\npressure that routinely exceeds the established maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Breitburn Energy specified that the MAOP of its line was\n200 psi based on the results of a 1994 hydrostatic pressure test. However, the Notice further\nalleged that Respondent maintained a normal operating pressure for this line of 200-250 psi, and\nthat it had set the pressure relief valve at 250 psi. Breitburn Energy did not contest the allegation\nof the violation, but explained that it had mistakenly reported the operating pressure to be 200-\n250 psi. Respondent also claimed that the operating pressure of the line, based on measurements\ntaken after the OPS inspection, is and has been 160-175 psi.\nThe records reviewed at the time of the OPS inspection showed that Breitburn Energy was\nconsistently operating the line above its MAOP. Respondent has not introduced any evidence\nthat refutes that fact. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by exceeding the established MAOP for its pipeline.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\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 determine 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§ 192.302(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to inspect the\npressure regulating valve on its line at the prescribed intervals. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat for the 3-year period preceding the OPS inspection, Breitburn Energy did not have any\nrecords to show that it had inspected its pressure limiting device at least once each calendar\nyear, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to ensure that it is in good mechanical condition,\n\n\n\n6\nhas adequate capacity, sets to control or relieve at the correct pressure, and is installed properly.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation, but stated that employee responsible for\nperforming those inspections and retaining the required records had taken or destroyed all of\nthose documents when he left the company. Breitburn Energy also stated that its pressure relief\ndevice had been “effectively” tested on a routine basis, as “it is set off each time the Southern\nCalifornia Gas Company shuts down its receiving line due to gas quality issues, which in turn\ncauses pressure buildup of the transmission line causing the relief device to go off.”5\nBreitburn Energy is required to retain a record of each pressure relief inspection for at least 5\nthat the pressure relief inspections occurred, because it has no records of the inspections.\nMoreover, Breitburn Energy acknowledges that the employee responsible for performing those\ninspections and retaining the required records made false statements about the performance of\nhis duties. Furthermore, the actuation of the relief device as described in Breitburn Energy’s\nyears or until the inspection occurs, whichever is longer.6 Breitburn Energy cannot demonstrate\nResponse does not constitute an adequate inspection for purposes of this regulation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to inspect the pressure relief valve for its pipeline at the required\nintervals.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.745: Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must\nbe inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745 by failing to inspect the\nmainline block valves on its pipeline at the required intervals. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Breitburn Energy did not have any records to show that it had inspected the block valve on\nits line for the 3 years preceding the OPS inspection, and that each transmission mainline block\nvalve that may be required during any emergency must be inspected at least once a year, with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained that its policy is to conduct\nemergency shutoff valve inspections on an annual basis, and that management was told the\nrequired testing was done in this case. However, Breitburn Energy also acknowledged that the\ndocumentation associated with those inspections was not in its files.\n7\n5 Response at 3.\n6 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\n7 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n7\nBreitburn Energy has a duty to retain a record of each valve inspection for at least 5 years\nor until the inspection occurs, whichever is longer.8\nWithout records of valve inspections,\nBreitburn Energy cannot demonstrate that the inspections occurred. Accordingly, based upon\na review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745 by failing\nto inspect the mainline block valves on its pipeline at the required intervals.\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 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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 $105,000 for the violations cited above.\nIn its response, Respondent alleged that for each of the violations, the inspection records are\nmissing because a former employee destroyed or removed the documents from Breitburn\npremises without permission. Breitburn Energy explained that the employee charged with\nconducting the required inspections and maintaining the associated records regularly reported\nto his superiors that the inspections were conducted and recorded. Additionally, the employee\nverified to Breitburn’s Environmental, Health and Safety department that all DOT compliance\nwork was up to date. However, Breitburn Energy later learned that the employee had made false\nrepresentations to management. This employee is no longer working at Breitburn Energy. After\nthe employee left, Breitburn’s management determined that the records of inspections were\nmissing. They believe that the former employee is responsible for the compliance issues and\nmissing records. Since the inspection, Breitburn Energy has replaced the crew at the Seal Beach\nfacility. In addition, Breitburn Energy has instituted new internal policies and procedures to\nbetter monitor performance and to duplicate records.9\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465, for failing to inspect the rectifier that provides impressed cathodic protection for the\npipeline. Breitburn Energy had no records to show that it had conducted the monitoring at least\nsix times per year, with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months. In its response, Breitburn Energy\nrequested that the penalty be reduced because there was no adverse impact on the environment,\nBreitburn Energy has not had any prior violations at this location, and because the missing\ninspection records are the result of the personnel issue described above. Breitburn Energy stated\n8 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\n9 Response at 1.\n\n\n\n8\nasserts that since the change of personnel at the facility, they have been maintaining and are able\nthat it is “confident that these inspections were conducted.”10 Furthermore, Breitburn Energy\nto locate all required records.\nRespondent has not provided any evidence to substantiate its “confidence” in the fact that the\nrequired inspections ever occurred. The employee charged with performing those inspections\nhas proven untrustworthy, and there is no other reliable evidence indicating that the inspections\noccurred. A reduction in the civil penalty is unwarranted because Breitburn Energy has not\ndemonstrated that it took any action, over a period of three years, to ensure that the inspections\nits employee claimed to be conducting were actually conducted. Based upon the foregoing, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.739, for failing to inspect the pressure relief valve on its pipeline at the required intervals.\nRespondent has requested a reduction in the proposed penalty because it has a policy in place for\ninspecting these valves, even though the required documentation is missing due to the actions of\nits former employee. Breitburn Energy also seeks a reduction because the violation did not result\nin any adverse impact on the environment, and it has no history of prior violations at this\nlocation. However, Breitburn Energy has not shown that it made any efforts to ensure that its\npolicy of inspecting the pressure relief valves was followed by the employees charged with\nconducting the inspections. Accordingly, I do not find support for a reduction in the civil\npenalty. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 192.739.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.745, for failing to inspect the transmission line emergency shutoff valve. Respondent\nrequested a reduced penalty because management had been told the testing was performed, but\nthe former employee destroyed or removed the relevant records. As explained in the assessment\nof penalty for Items 1 and 4, a reduction in the civil penalty is unwarranted because Breitburn\nEnergy has not demonstrated that it took any measures to ensure that the inspections actually\noccurred. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 192.745.\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 $105,000.\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.\n10 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n9\nFailure to pay the $105,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant\nto those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged\nif payment 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, 3, 4, and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.609, 192.619, 192.739, 192.745, respectively. Under 49\nU.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. The Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed\ncompliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.465 (Item 1), Respondent has replaced\npersonnel at the Seal Beach Facility and has instituted procedures to monitor\nperformance and to duplicate records. Since the change of personnel, Breitburn\nEnergy has conducted timely external corrosion monitoring and maintained the\nrequired records.11\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.609 (Item 2), Respondent conducted a Class\nLocation Survey dated June 24, 2008 and has prepared an additional Class Location\nSurvey that it has included in its pipeline manual.12\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.619 (Item 3), Respondent took operating\npressure measurements and determined that its normal operating pressure does not\nexceed its maximum allowable operating pressure. Respondent is also conducting a\nfull evaluation of the pipelines at the facility to ensure that all systems are set at and\noperating at optimal pressures and settings.13\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.739 (Item 4), Respondent has corrected the\npersonnel issues that led to the lack of records of inspections of the regulating valve.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 192.745 (Item 5), Respondent has corrected the\n11 See Response at 2, and attachment to Response: “Sample Rectifier Inspection Logs.”\n12 See attachment to Response.\n13 See Response at 3.\n\n\n\n10\npersonnel issues that led to the missing records of inspections of the emergency\nshutoff valve, and has instituted procedures to better monitor performance of\ninspections.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration\nof this 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\nof any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay,\nall other 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\n520090009_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 5-2009-0009\nDear Ms. Brock:\nOn June 18-19, 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 the Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P. pipeline facilities in Seal\nBeach, 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. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring\n(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power source must\nbe inspected six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2 1/2\nmonths, to insure that it is operating.\nBreitburn Energy did not inspect at the required frequency the rectifier that provides\nimpressed cathodic protection for this pipeline. During the last three years, Breitburn only\nconducted monitoring during the annual Farwest’s pipe-to-soil potential survey. Each\nrectifier must be inspected at least six times a year, with intervals not exceeding 2½\nmonths.\n\n\n\n2. §192.609 Change in class location: Required study.\nWhenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class location for a\nsegment of an existing steel pipeline operating at a hoop stress that is more than 40\npercent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress corresponding to the established\nmaximum allowable operating pressure for a segment of existing pipeline is not\ncommensurate with the present class location, the operator shall immediately make a\nstudy to determine;\n(a) The present class location for the segment involved.\n(b) The design, construction, and testing procedures followed in the original\nconstruction, and a comparison of these procedures with those required for the\npresent class location by the applicable provisions of this part.\n(c) The physical condition of the segment to the extent it can be ascertained from\navailable records;\n(d) The operating and maintenance history of the segment;\n(e) The maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding operating hoop\nstress, taking pressure gradient into account, for the segment of pipeline involved;\nand,\n(f) The actual area affected by the population density increase, and physical barriers\nor other factors which may limit further expansion of the more densely populated\narea.\nA short section of sales line is located in a class 3 location. Breitburn Energy failed to\nconduct a class study to determine the present class location designation. Breitburn\nEnergy Records indicated the entire pipeline to be in a class 1 location.\n3. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate a\nsegment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the lowest of the\nfollowing:\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was tested\nafter construction as follows:\n(ii) For steel pipe operated at 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage or more, the test pressure is\ndivided by a factor determined in accordance with the following table:\nFactors\nClass Segment Installed Segment Installed Segment Converted\nlocation Before (Nov 12, 1970) after (Nov 11, 1970) under §192.14\n1 1.10 1.10 1.25\n2 1.25 1.25 1.25\n3 1.40 1.50 1.50\n4 1.40 1.50 1.50\n2\n\n\n\nBreitburn Energy specified the MAOP of its sales line to be 200 psi based on the results of\na 1994 hydrotest. The normal operating pressure of this line is 200-250 psi and the PRV\nis set at 260 psi. This operating pressure routinely exceeds their established MAOP.\n4. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine\nthat it is–\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at the\ncorrect pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a);; and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that\nmight prevent proper operation.\nBreitburn Energy did not inspect the only pressure regulating valve on its sales line for the\nlast three years. Each pressure limiting device must be inspected at least once each\ncalendar year not exceeding 15 months to ensure it is in good mechanical condition, has\nadequate capacity, sets to control or relieve at the correct pressure, and is installed\nproperly.\n5. §192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must\nbe inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year.\nBreitburn Energy did not inspect the mainline bock valves on its sales line for the last 3\nyears. Each transmission mainline block valve that may be required during any\nemergency must be inspected at least once a year not to exceed 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 $105,000.00 as follows:\n3\n\n\n\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $35,000.00\n4 $35,000.00\n5 $35,000.00\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to\nBreitburn Energy Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is\nenclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance 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 for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust 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 5-2009-0009 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 (#120750)\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\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 Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of BBE with the\npipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining external corrosion monitoring.\nBreitburn Energy must conduct inspection of its cathodic protection rectifier or other\nimpressed current power source six times each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 2 1/2 months, to ensure that it is operating.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the present class location for the\nsegment involved. Breitburn Energy must conduct a class location study and make sure\nthe maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding operating hoop stress,\ntaking pressure gradient into account, for the segment of pipeline involved meet the class\nlocation.\n3. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to maximum allowable operating\npressure (MAOP), Breitburn Energy must make sure that its normal operating pressure\ndoes not exceed its MAOP and the relief set pint is no more than 110% of MAOP.\n4. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to pressure limiting and regulating\nstations inspection and testing. Breitburn Energy must conduct inspections of its pressure\nrelief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once a year to make sure\nthey are in good mechanical condition, have adequate capacity, and are protected from\ndirt, liquids or other conditions that might prevent proper operation.\n5. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to valve maintenance. Breitburn\nEnergy must conduct inspections on its transmission line valves that might be required\nduring any emergency and partially operate them at intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nbut at least once each calendar year\n6. Within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order, Breitburn Energy must complete the\nabove items, 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.\n7. Breitburn Energy shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal,\nDirector, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\nCosts shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":36068}