{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520177001","title":"DCOR, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-03-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 194.101(a), 195.402(a), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520177001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520177001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520177001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520177001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DCOR, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 194.101(a),  195.402(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2017-03-23 and is reported as closed as of 2017-10-24. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520177001_Final Order_10242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520177001/520177001_Final%20Order_10242017.pdf\n\n520177001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520177001/520177001_Final%20Order_10242017_text.pdf\n\n520177001_NOPV PCO_03232017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520177001/520177001_NOPV%20PCO_03232017.pdf\n\n520177001_NOPV PCO_03232017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520177001/520177001_NOPV%20PCO_03232017_text.pdf\n\n520177001_Operator Response to Notice_04272017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520177001/520177001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04272017.pdf\n\n520177001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf\n\nOctober 24, 2017\nMr. Andrew Prestridge\nPresident\nDCOR, LLC\n290 Maple Court, Suite 290\nVentura, CA 93003\nRe: CPF No. 5-2017-7001\nDear Mr. Prestridge:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, finds that DCOR, LLC, 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 is effective as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Robert L. Garcia, Vice President – Operations, DCOR, LLC\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 )\nDCOR, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2017-7001\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom December 13 through 16, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the pipeline system that serves the\nPlatform Gina, Platform Gilda, and the Mandalay Onshore Separation Facility (MOSF) of\nDCOR, LLC (DCOR or Respondent), in Ventura, California. DCOR explores and produces oil\nand natural gas in Southern California, the Ventura Basin, and the Los Angeles Basin.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 23, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that DCOR had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 194.101, 195.402, and 195.589, and proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nDCOR responded to the Notice by letter dated April 27, 2017 (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, DCOR did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nParts 194 and 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.101(a), which states:\n§ 194.101 Operators required to submit plans.\n1 Company Overview of DCOR, LLC, available at\nhttps://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=13406103 (last accessed July 6, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-7001\nPage 2\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, unless OPS\ngrants a request from a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to require an\noperator of a pipeline in paragraph (b) to submit a response plan, each\noperator of an onshore pipeline facility shall prepare and submit a response\nplan to PHMSA as provided in § 194.119. A pipeline which does not meet\nthe criteria for significant and substantial harm as defined in § 194.103(c)\nand is not eligible for an exception under § 194.101(b), can be expected to\ncause substantial harm. Operators of substantial harm pipeline facilities\nmust prepare and submit plans to PHMSA for review.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.101(a) by failing to submit an oil-\nspill response plan to PHMSA as provided in § 194.119. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nDCOR, an operator of an onshore pipeline facility, prepared an Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP)\nin 2012 that was approved by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, U.S.\nDepartment of the Interior. The Notice alleged that there was no evidence to demonstrate that\nDCOR submitted its OSRP to PHMSA for review and approval or that DCOR qualified for any\nexceptions under § 194.101(a).\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. § 194.101(a) by failing to submit an\noil-spill response plan to PHMSA as provided in § 194.119.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system\na manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCOR\nfailed to follow its written Operation, Maintenance & Emergency Plan (OME) as follows:\na. DCOR did not follow its Procedure HL6.01 “Atmospheric Corrosion,” Section 4.4, to\nassure detection of corrosion before detrimental damage. DCOR’s annual inspection\nrecords for atmospheric corrosion conducted on Platform Gilda indicate there were no\ninstances of atmospheric corrosion on the 12-inch oil pipeline riser.2 However, during\n2 DCOR clarified in its Response that the valve and riser in question in Item 2a are located on Platform Gilda’s gas\nline, not oil line. However, DCOR did not contest the item and DCOR has completed the compliance term for Item\n2a.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-7001\nPage 3\nthe inspection, the PHMSA inspector observed and photographed detrimental damage on\nthe pipeline riser and a broken valve hand wheel due to atmospheric corrosion. There\nwas no evidence that DCOR further investigated these corrosion conditions in accordance\nwith Section 4.4.\nb. DCOR did not follow its “Flange Bolting Guide,” in that it did not make the appropriate\nadjustments by selective bolt tightening as required. During the inspection of the MOSF\nabove-ground flange, the PHMSA inspector observed several stud bolts shorter than\nothers and gap engagements that were not reasonably uniform around the circumference\nof the flange.\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. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nown written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), which states:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by\nthis subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion\ncontrol measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not\nexist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years, except that records\nrelated to §§ 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c) must\nbe retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion-control\nmeasures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that during the inspection, the PHMSA inspector observed corrosion at the MOSF, and\nobserved conditions that made it impossible for DCOR to conduct accurate atmospheric-\ncorrosion inspections. Subsequently, on January 20, 2017, the PHMSA inspector requested\nDCOR’s inspection records for conducting atmospheric corrosion inspections on the MOSF\nabove-ground pipeline facility. DCOR emailed Form 6.01A, which showed that the pipeline\nlocated at Platform Gilda was inspected for atmospheric corrosion, but the pipeline facility at the\nMOSF was not.\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. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion-control\nmeasures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-7001\nPage 4\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 194.101, 195.402, and 195.589, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nto address the cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 194.101(a) (Item 1), Respondent has submitted\nits Oil Spill Response Plan to PHMSA;\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.402 (Item 2), Respondent has: (a) conducted\nan accurate atmospheric corrosion evaluation on the pipeline riser and its components\nlocated at Platform Gilda, and followed its Procedure HL6.01 “Atmospheric\nCorrosion” and corrected the deficiencies found; (b) installed a new hand wheel on a\nvalve where its hand wheel was consumed by corrosion, and evaluated and exercised\nthis valve as necessary; and (c) followed its “Flange Bolting Guide” and installed stud\nbolts of the same length to the flange where different lengths of stud bolts were used,\nand inspected other flanges to make sure the stud bolts used have the same length and\nhave uniform gap engagements around the circumference;\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.589 (Item 3), Respondent has conducted an\natmospheric-corrosion evaluation on the above-ground pipeline system located at the\nMOSF, and followed its Procedure HL6.01 “Atmospheric Corrosion” and corrected\nthe deficiencies found;\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.589 (Item 3), Respondent has removed the\ntape wrap on the pipe and its components where it was inadvertently buried,\nconducted a visual inspection for atmospheric corrosion, and followed its Procedure\nHL6.01 “Atmospheric Corrosion” to correct the deficiencies found;\n5. With respect to the violation of § 195.589 (Item 3), Respondent has re-evaluated\nthe design location of the corrosion inhibitors’ test point to make sure it is not in\ncontact with the soil and followed its Procedure HL6.01 “Atmospheric Corrosion” to\ncorrect the deficiencies found; and\n6. With respect to the violation of § 195.589 (Item 3), Respondent has evaluated the\nintegrity of, and inspected for corrosion activity on, the flange’s surface where it had\na metallic contact with the metal support, and followed its Procedure HL6.01\n“Atmospheric Corrosion” to correct the deficiencies found.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-7001\nPage 5\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.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nOctober 24, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13112}