{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520120014","title":"VENOCO, INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-05-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.905(a), 192.921(a)(1), 192.937(a), 192.945(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520120014.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520120014.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520120014","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520120014","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving VENOCO, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.905(a),  192.921(a)(1),  192.937(a),  192.945(a). The case was opened on 2012-05-22 and is reported as closed as of 2012-11-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520120014_Final Order_11162012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_Final%20Order_11162012.pdf\n\n520120014_Final Order_11162012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_Final%20Order_11162012_text.pdf\n\n520120014_NOPV PCO_05222012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_NOPV%20PCO_05222012.pdf\n\n520120014_NOPV PCO_05222012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_NOPV%20PCO_05222012_text.pdf\n\n520120014_Operator Response_07262012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_Operator%20Response_07262012.pdf\n\n520120014_Final Order_11162012_text.pdf\n\nNOVEMBER 16, 2012\nMr. Edward O’Donnell\nChief Executive Officer\nVenoco, Inc.\n370 17th Street, Suite 3900\nDenver, CO 80202-1370\nRe: CPF No. 5-2012-0014\nDear Mr. O’Donnell:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Venoco, Inc. has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 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. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Keith Wenal, Manager – Health, Environment, and Safety, Venoco, Inc.\n6267 Carpinteria Ave., Suite 100, Carpinteria, CA 93013\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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 )\nVenoco, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2012-0014\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 12 and 14, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Venoco, Inc.\n(Venoco or Respondent) in Carpinteria, California. Venoco operates approximately 38 miles of\noil and gas pipelines in and around the Santa Barbara Channel in Southern California and the\nSacramento Basin in Central California.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 22, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included two warning items in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nVenoco had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct two of the alleged violations. The warning items\nrequired no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face\npossible enforcement action.\nVenoco responded to the Notice by letter dated July 26, 2012 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it\nhad taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Venoco did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192 as follows:\n1 See http://www.venocoinc.com/index.html (last accessed 10/23/2012).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a), which states:\n§ 192.905 -- How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator’s\ntransmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must\nidentify the high consequence areas. An operator must use method (1) or\n(2) from the definition in §192.903 to identify a high consequence area.\nAn operator may apply one method to its entire pipeline system, or an\noperator may apply one method to individual portions of the pipeline\nsystem. An operator must describe in its integrity management program\nwhich method it is applying to each portion of the operator’s pipeline\nsystem. The description must include the potential impact radius when\nutilized to establish a high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for\nguidance on identifying high consequence areas.)\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) by failing to identify a\nsegment of the Montalvo Sales Gas pipeline as a segment that could affect a High Consequence\nArea (HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that the segment traversed an area within the\ncalculated Potential Impact Radius (PIR) of 70 feet from the California Mushroom Farm in\nOxnard, California, which met the definition of an Identified Site.\n2 Respondent did not contest\nthis allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) by failing to identify a segment of the Montalvo\nSales Gas pipeline as a segment that could affect a HCA.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1), which states:\n§ 192.921 -- How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?\n(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the\nline pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the\nfollowing methods depending on the threats to which the covered segment\nis susceptible. An operator must select the method or methods best suited\nto address the threats identified to the covered segment (See §192.917).\n(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion, and\nany other threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator\nmust follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7),\nsection 6.2 in selecting the appropriate internal inspection tools for the\ncovered segment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1) by failing to specify an\ninternal inspection tool capable of detecting corrosion and other threats to which the pipeline is\nsusceptible, such as stress corrosion cracking or electric resistance welded seam failure.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1) by failing to specify\nan internal inspection tool for assessing its pipeline capable of detecting corrosion and other\n2 The term “Identified Site” is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 and includes buildings such as office buildings\noccupied by twenty or more persons on at least five days a week for ten weeks in any twelve month period.\n\n\n\n3\nthreats to which the pipeline is susceptible.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905(a) and 192.921(a)(1), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in\nthe proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.905(a) (Item 1), Respondent has revised its\nintegrity management plan to include the specified segment as a HCA segment;\nand\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.921(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has revised\nits assessment method matrix to ensure appropriate internal inspection tools are\nselected in accordance with ASME/ANSI B31.8S.\n3. Respondent reported the costs to achieve compliance as requested.\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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.937(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to reassess the\nUnion Island pipeline in accordance with its assessment schedule; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to measure\nprogram effectiveness on a semi-annual basis and failure to report the 2010\nperformance measures to OPS.\nVenoco presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\n\n\n\n4\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order [CPF No.:5-2012-0014] are effective upon service\nin accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9650}