# VENOCO, INC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520120014_Final Order_11162012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_Final%20Order_11162012.pdf

520120014_Final Order_11162012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_Final%20Order_11162012_text.pdf

520120014_NOPV PCO_05222012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_NOPV%20PCO_05222012.pdf

520120014_NOPV PCO_05222012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_NOPV%20PCO_05222012_text.pdf

520120014_Operator Response_07262012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520120014/520120014_Operator%20Response_07262012.pdf

520120014_Final Order_11162012_text.pdf

NOVEMBER 16, 2012
Mr. Edward O’Donnell
Chief Executive Officer
Venoco, Inc.
370 17th Street, Suite 3900
Denver, CO 80202-1370
Re: CPF No. 5-2012-0014
Dear Mr. O’Donnell:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and finds that Venoco, Inc. has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply
with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now 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, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. Keith Wenal, Manager – Health, Environment, and Safety, Venoco, Inc.
6267 Carpinteria Ave., Suite 100, Carpinteria, CA 93013
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Venoco, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2012-0014
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between July 12 and 14, 2011, 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 Venoco, Inc.
(Venoco or Respondent) in Carpinteria, California. Venoco operates approximately 38 miles of
oil and gas pipelines in and around the Santa Barbara Channel in Southern California and the
Sacramento Basin in Central California.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated May 22, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice), which also included two warning items in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Venoco had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct two of the alleged violations. The warning items
required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face
possible enforcement action.
Venoco responded to the Notice by letter dated July 26, 2012 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it
had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Venoco did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 192 as follows:
1 See http://www.venocoinc.com/index.html (last accessed 10/23/2012).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a), which states:
§ 192.905 -- How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator’s
transmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must
identify the high consequence areas. An operator must use method (1) or
(2) from the definition in §192.903 to identify a high consequence area.
An operator may apply one method to its entire pipeline system, or an
operator may apply one method to individual portions of the pipeline
system. An operator must describe in its integrity management program
which method it is applying to each portion of the operator’s pipeline
system. The description must include the potential impact radius when
utilized to establish a high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for
guidance on identifying high consequence areas.)
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) by failing to identify a
segment of the Montalvo Sales Gas pipeline as a segment that could affect a High Consequence
Area (HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that the segment traversed an area within the
calculated Potential Impact Radius (PIR) of 70 feet from the California Mushroom Farm in
Oxnard, California, which met the definition of an Identified Site.
2 Respondent did not contest
this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) by failing to identify a segment of the Montalvo
Sales Gas pipeline as a segment that could affect a HCA.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1), which states:
§ 192.921 -- How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?
(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the
line pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the
following methods depending on the threats to which the covered segment
is susceptible. An operator must select the method or methods best suited
to address the threats identified to the covered segment (See §192.917).
(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion, and
any other threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator
must follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7),
section 6.2 in selecting the appropriate internal inspection tools for the
covered segment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1) by failing to specify an
internal inspection tool capable of detecting corrosion and other threats to which the pipeline is
susceptible, such as stress corrosion cracking or electric resistance welded seam failure.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1) by failing to specify
an internal inspection tool for assessing its pipeline capable of detecting corrosion and other
2 The term “Identified Site” is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 and includes buildings such as office buildings
occupied by twenty or more persons on at least five days a week for ten weeks in any twelve month period.



3
threats to which the pipeline is susceptible.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905(a) and 192.921(a)(1), 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 Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in
the proposed compliance order:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.905(a) (Item 1), Respondent has revised its
integrity management plan to include the specified segment as a HCA segment;
and
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.921(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has revised
its assessment method matrix to ensure appropriate internal inspection tools are
selected in accordance with ASME/ANSI B31.8S.
3. Respondent reported the costs to achieve compliance as requested.
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.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 3 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to
be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.937(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to reassess the
Union Island pipeline in accordance with its assessment schedule; and
49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to measure
program effectiveness on a semi-annual basis and failure to report the 2010
performance measures to OPS.
Venoco presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.



4
The terms and conditions of this Final Order [CPF No.:5-2012-0014] are effective upon service
in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 9650