# PACIFIC COAST ENERGY COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

520090009_FinalOrder_03212011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_FinalOrder_03212011.pdf

520090009_FinalOrder_03212011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_FinalOrder_03212011_text.pdf

520090009_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01082009.pdf

520090009_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01082009_text.pdf

520090009_operator response_07302009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090009/520090009_operator%20response_07302009.pdf

520090009_FinalOrder_03212011_text.pdf

MAR 21 2011
Mr. Halbert S. Washburn
Chief Executive Officer
Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P.
515 South Flower Street, Suite 4800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Re: CPF No. 5-2009-0009
Dear Mr. Washburn:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings
of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $105,000. It further finds that Breitburn Energy
Corporation L.P. has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline
safety regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.
Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as
otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0073 9659]



2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P., ) CPF No. 5-2009-0009
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
In June 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P.
(Breitburn Energy or Respondent) in Seal Beach, California. Breitburn Energy operates a 5-mile
pipeline facility in that area on behalf of the Seal Beach Gas Processing Joint Venture.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated January 8, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207,
the Notice proposed finding that Breitburn Energy had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.609,
192.619, 192.739, and 192.745 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $105,000 for the
alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures
to correct the alleged violations.
Breitburn Energy responded to the Notice by letter dated July 30, 2009 (Response). The
company did not contest the allegations of violation, but offered explanations for its actions, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465, which states, in
relevant part:



3
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current
power source must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, to insure that it is operating.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465 by failing to inspect a
rectifier that provides impressed cathodic protection for its pipeline at least six times a year, with
intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during the three years
prior to the PHMSA inspection, Breitburn Energy only inspected that rectifier once a year, i.e.,
during the annual pipe-to-soil survey conducted by its third-party contractor.
In its Response, Breitburn Energy did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained
that the employee responsible for maintaining its records had taken or destroyed all of those
documents when he left the company. Respondent further stated that it was confident that the
required inspection had occurred, even though it could not provide any of the required
documentation.
1
Breitburn Energy has an obligation to retain a record of each rectifier inspection for at least 5
years.
inspections occurred. Moreover, Breitburn Energy acknowledges that the employee responsible
for conducting the inspections and maintaining the records made false statements about the
performance of his duties. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465 by failing to inspect the rectifier at least six times per
year, with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, for a period of three years.
2 Without any rectifier inspection records, Breitburn Energy cannot demonstrate that the
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.609, which states:
§ 192.609 Change in class location: Required study.
Whenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class
location for a segment of an existing steel pipeline operating at hoop stress
that is more than 40 percent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress
corresponding to the established maximum allowable operating pressure
for a segment of existing pipeline is not commensurate with the present
class location, the operator shall immediately make a study to determine:
(a) The present class location for the segment involved.
(b) The design, construction, and testing procedures followed in the
original construction, and a comparison of these procedures with those
required for the present class location by the applicable provisions of this
part.
(c) The physical condition of the segment to the extent it can be
1 Response at 2.
2 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c).



4
ascertained from available records;
(d) The operating and maintenance history of the segment;
(e) The maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding
operating hoop stress, taking pressure gradient into account, for the
segment of pipeline involved; and
(f) The actual area affected by the population density increase, and
physical barriers or other factors which may limit further expansion of the
more densely populated area.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.609 by failing to immediately
make a study to determine the present class location for a portion of its pipeline. In particular,
the Notice alleged that Breitburn Energy’s records indicated the entire pipeline is in a Class 1
location, even though a short section of its pipeline is in a Class 3 location.
In its Response, Breitburn Energy explained that it has consistently maintained that a 0.97-mile
portion of transmission line in its system is in a Class 3 location, and it included a copy of its
2008 Class Location Survey for its pipeline, which shows that this line is in a Class 3 location.3
Respondent also explained that it has prepared an additional Class Location Survey and included
it in its pipeline manual as an addendum.
The Class Location Survey submitted by Breitburn Energy is dated June 24, 2008, several days
after the OPS on-site safety inspection occurred in this case. Therefore, that report does not
show that Respondent had conducted a class location study prior to the inspection. Breitburn
Energy did not submit any other evidence demonstrating that it had previously performed such
study. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent has
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.609 by failing to conduct a class location study.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.619: Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.4
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the
lowest of the following:
(1) . . . .
(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the
segment was tested after construction as follows:
(i) . . . .
(ii) For steel pipe operated at 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage or more, the
test pressure is divided by a factor determined in accordance with the
following table:
3 Class Location Survey, attached to Response.
4 Section 192.619 was amended by the final rule published on October 17, 2008 (73 FR 62148).



5
Factors
Class location Segment Installed
Segment Installed
Segment Converted
Before (Nov 12, 1970)
after (Nov 11, 1970)
under § 192.14
1 1.10 1.10 1.25
2 1.25 1.25 1.25
3 1.40 1.50 1.50
4 1.40 1.50 1.50
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by operating its pipeline at a
pressure that routinely exceeds the established maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP).
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Breitburn Energy specified that the MAOP of its line was
200 psi based on the results of a 1994 hydrostatic pressure test. However, the Notice further
alleged that Respondent maintained a normal operating pressure for this line of 200-250 psi, and
that it had set the pressure relief valve at 250 psi. Breitburn Energy did not contest the allegation
of the violation, but explained that it had mistakenly reported the operating pressure to be 200-
250 psi. Respondent also claimed that the operating pressure of the line, based on measurements
taken after the OPS inspection, is and has been 160-175 psi.
The records reviewed at the time of the OPS inspection showed that Breitburn Energy was
consistently operating the line above its MAOP. Respondent has not introduced any evidence
that refutes that fact. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by exceeding the established MAOP for its pipeline.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),
and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to
inspections and tests to determine that it is –
(1) In good mechanical condition;
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it is employed;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control
or relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of
§ 192.302(a); and
(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other
conditions that might prevent proper operation.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to inspect the
pressure regulating valve on its line at the prescribed intervals. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that for the 3-year period preceding the OPS inspection, Breitburn Energy did not have any
records to show that it had inspected its pressure limiting device at least once each calendar
year, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to ensure that it is in good mechanical condition,



6
has adequate capacity, sets to control or relieve at the correct pressure, and is installed properly.
Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation, but stated that employee responsible for
performing those inspections and retaining the required records had taken or destroyed all of
those documents when he left the company. Breitburn Energy also stated that its pressure relief
device had been “effectively” tested on a routine basis, as “it is set off each time the Southern
California Gas Company shuts down its receiving line due to gas quality issues, which in turn
causes pressure buildup of the transmission line causing the relief device to go off.”5
Breitburn Energy is required to retain a record of each pressure relief inspection for at least 5
that the pressure relief inspections occurred, because it has no records of the inspections.
Moreover, Breitburn Energy acknowledges that the employee responsible for performing those
inspections and retaining the required records made false statements about the performance of
his duties. Furthermore, the actuation of the relief device as described in Breitburn Energy’s
years or until the inspection occurs, whichever is longer.6 Breitburn Energy cannot demonstrate
Response does not constitute an adequate inspection for purposes of this regulation.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to inspect the pressure relief valve for its pipeline at the required
intervals.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.745: Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.
(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must
be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once
each calendar year.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745 by failing to inspect the
mainline block valves on its pipeline at the required intervals. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Breitburn Energy did not have any records to show that it had inspected the block valve on
its line for the 3 years preceding the OPS inspection, and that each transmission mainline block
valve that may be required during any emergency must be inspected at least once a year, with
intervals not exceeding 15 months.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but explained that its policy is to conduct
emergency shutoff valve inspections on an annual basis, and that management was told the
required testing was done in this case. However, Breitburn Energy also acknowledged that the
documentation associated with those inspections was not in its files.
7
5 Response at 3.
6 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).
7 Response at 4.



7
Breitburn Energy has a duty to retain a record of each valve inspection for at least 5 years
or until the inspection occurs, whichever is longer.8
Without records of valve inspections,
Breitburn Energy cannot demonstrate that the inspections occurred. Accordingly, based upon
a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745 by failing
to inspect the mainline block valves on its pipeline at the required intervals.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $105,000 for the violations cited above.
In its response, Respondent alleged that for each of the violations, the inspection records are
missing because a former employee destroyed or removed the documents from Breitburn
premises without permission. Breitburn Energy explained that the employee charged with
conducting the required inspections and maintaining the associated records regularly reported
to his superiors that the inspections were conducted and recorded. Additionally, the employee
verified to Breitburn’s Environmental, Health and Safety department that all DOT compliance
work was up to date. However, Breitburn Energy later learned that the employee had made false
representations to management. This employee is no longer working at Breitburn Energy. After
the employee left, Breitburn’s management determined that the records of inspections were
missing. They believe that the former employee is responsible for the compliance issues and
missing records. Since the inspection, Breitburn Energy has replaced the crew at the Seal Beach
facility. In addition, Breitburn Energy has instituted new internal policies and procedures to
better monitor performance and to duplicate records.9
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.465, for failing to inspect the rectifier that provides impressed cathodic protection for the
pipeline. Breitburn Energy had no records to show that it had conducted the monitoring at least
six times per year, with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months. In its response, Breitburn Energy
requested that the penalty be reduced because there was no adverse impact on the environment,
Breitburn Energy has not had any prior violations at this location, and because the missing
inspection records are the result of the personnel issue described above. Breitburn Energy stated
8 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).
9 Response at 1.



8
asserts that since the change of personnel at the facility, they have been maintaining and are able
that it is “confident that these inspections were conducted.”10 Furthermore, Breitburn Energy
to locate all required records.
Respondent has not provided any evidence to substantiate its “confidence” in the fact that the
required inspections ever occurred. The employee charged with performing those inspections
has proven untrustworthy, and there is no other reliable evidence indicating that the inspections
occurred. A reduction in the civil penalty is unwarranted because Breitburn Energy has not
demonstrated that it took any action, over a period of three years, to ensure that the inspections
its employee claimed to be conducting were actually conducted. Based upon the foregoing, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.739, for failing to inspect the pressure relief valve on its pipeline at the required intervals.
Respondent has requested a reduction in the proposed penalty because it has a policy in place for
inspecting these valves, even though the required documentation is missing due to the actions of
its former employee. Breitburn Energy also seeks a reduction because the violation did not result
in any adverse impact on the environment, and it has no history of prior violations at this
location. However, Breitburn Energy has not shown that it made any efforts to ensure that its
policy of inspecting the pressure relief valves was followed by the employees charged with
conducting the inspections. Accordingly, I do not find support for a reduction in the civil
penalty. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation
of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739.
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.745, for failing to inspect the transmission line emergency shutoff valve. Respondent
requested a reduced penalty because management had been told the testing was performed, but
the former employee destroyed or removed the relevant records. As explained in the assessment
of penalty for Items 1 and 4, a reduction in the civil penalty is unwarranted because Breitburn
Energy has not demonstrated that it took any measures to ensure that the inspections actually
occurred. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violation
of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $105,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
10 Response at 2.



9
Failure to pay the $105,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant
to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged
if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.609, 192.619, 192.739, 192.745, respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed
compliance order:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.465 (Item 1), Respondent has replaced
personnel at the Seal Beach Facility and has instituted procedures to monitor
performance and to duplicate records. Since the change of personnel, Breitburn
Energy has conducted timely external corrosion monitoring and maintained the
required records.11
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.609 (Item 2), Respondent conducted a Class
Location Survey dated June 24, 2008 and has prepared an additional Class Location
Survey that it has included in its pipeline manual.12
3. With respect to the violation of § 192.619 (Item 3), Respondent took operating
pressure measurements and determined that its normal operating pressure does not
exceed its maximum allowable operating pressure. Respondent is also conducting a
full evaluation of the pipelines at the facility to ensure that all systems are set at and
operating at optimal pressures and settings.13
4. With respect to the violation of § 192.739 (Item 4), Respondent has corrected the
personnel issues that led to the lack of records of inspections of the regulating valve.
5. With respect to the violation of § 192.745 (Item 5), Respondent has corrected the
11 See Response at 2, and attachment to Response: “Sample Rectifier Inspection Logs.”
12 See attachment to Response.
13 See Response at 3.



10
personnel issues that led to the missing records of inspections of the emergency
shutoff valve, and has instituted procedures to better monitor performance of
inspections.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.
Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration
of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment
of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay,
all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520090009_NOPV PCP PCO_01082009_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 8, 2009
Ms. Martha Brock
EH&S Manager
Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P.
515 South Flower Street, Suite 4800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
CPF 5-2009-0009
Dear Ms. Brock:
On June 18-19, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of the Breitburn Energy Corporation L.P. pipeline facilities in Seal
Beach, California.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violations are:
1. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring
(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power source must
be inspected six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2 1/2
months, to insure that it is operating.
Breitburn Energy did not inspect at the required frequency the rectifier that provides
impressed cathodic protection for this pipeline. During the last three years, Breitburn only
conducted monitoring during the annual Farwest’s pipe-to-soil potential survey. Each
rectifier must be inspected at least six times a year, with intervals not exceeding 2½
months.



2. §192.609 Change in class location: Required study.
Whenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class location for a
segment of an existing steel pipeline operating at a hoop stress that is more than 40
percent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress corresponding to the established
maximum allowable operating pressure for a segment of existing pipeline is not
commensurate with the present class location, the operator shall immediately make a
study to determine;
(a) The present class location for the segment involved.
(b) The design, construction, and testing procedures followed in the original
construction, and a comparison of these procedures with those required for the
present class location by the applicable provisions of this part.
(c) The physical condition of the segment to the extent it can be ascertained from
available records;
(d) The operating and maintenance history of the segment;
(e) The maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding operating hoop
stress, taking pressure gradient into account, for the segment of pipeline involved;
and,
(f) The actual area affected by the population density increase, and physical barriers
or other factors which may limit further expansion of the more densely populated
area.
A short section of sales line is located in a class 3 location. Breitburn Energy failed to
conduct a class study to determine the present class location designation. Breitburn
Energy Records indicated the entire pipeline to be in a class 1 location.
3. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate a
segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the lowest of the
following:
(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was tested
after construction as follows:
(ii) For steel pipe operated at 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage or more, the test pressure is
divided by a factor determined in accordance with the following table:
Factors
Class Segment Installed Segment Installed Segment Converted
location Before (Nov 12, 1970) after (Nov 11, 1970) under §192.14
1 1.10 1.10 1.25
2 1.25 1.25 1.25
3 1.40 1.50 1.50
4 1.40 1.50 1.50
2



Breitburn Energy specified the MAOP of its sales line to be 200 psi based on the results of
a 1994 hydrotest. The normal operating pressure of this line is 200-250 psi and the PRV
is set at 260 psi. This operating pressure routinely exceeds their established MAOP.
4. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure
regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine
that it is–
(1) In good mechanical condition;
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the
service in which it is employed;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at the
correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a);; and
(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that
might prevent proper operation.
Breitburn Energy did not inspect the only pressure regulating valve on its sales line for the
last three years. Each pressure limiting device must be inspected at least once each
calendar year not exceeding 15 months to ensure it is in good mechanical condition, has
adequate capacity, sets to control or relieve at the correct pressure, and is installed
properly.
5. §192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.
(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency must
be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least
once each calendar year.
Breitburn Energy did not inspect the mainline bock valves on its sales line for the last 3
years. Each transmission mainline block valve that may be required during any
emergency must be inspected at least once a year not to exceed 15 months.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $105,000.00 as follows:
3



Item number PENALTY
1 $35,000.00
4 $35,000.00
5 $35,000.00
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to
Breitburn Energy Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is
enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information
qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days
of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in
this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2009-0009 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 H. Monfared (#120750)
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
4



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Breitburn Energy Corporation a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of BBE with the
pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining external corrosion monitoring.
Breitburn Energy must conduct inspection of its cathodic protection rectifier or other
impressed current power source six times each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 2 1/2 months, to ensure that it is operating.
2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the present class location for the
segment involved. Breitburn Energy must conduct a class location study and make sure
the maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding operating hoop stress,
taking pressure gradient into account, for the segment of pipeline involved meet the class
location.
3. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP), Breitburn Energy must make sure that its normal operating pressure
does not exceed its MAOP and the relief set pint is no more than 110% of MAOP.
4. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to pressure limiting and regulating
stations inspection and testing. Breitburn Energy must conduct inspections of its pressure
relief devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once a year to make sure
they are in good mechanical condition, have adequate capacity, and are protected from
dirt, liquids or other conditions that might prevent proper operation.
5. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to valve maintenance. Breitburn
Energy must conduct inspections on its transmission line valves that might be required
during any emergency and partially operate them at intervals not exceeding 15 months,
but at least once each calendar year
6. Within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order, Breitburn Energy must complete the
above items, and submit the required documentation and procedures to the Director,
Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, 12300
West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado 80228.
7. Breitburn Energy shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal,
Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision
of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,
additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
5
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 36068