{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220045015","title":"HUNT CRUDE OIL SUPPLY CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-07-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.503(b), 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(c), 195.509(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220045015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220045015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HUNT CRUDE OIL SUPPLY CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.503(b),  195.505(a),  195.505(b),  195.505(c),  195.509(c). The case was opened on 2004-07-22 and is reported as closed as of 2009-03-09. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $5,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220045015_FinalOrder_03092009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220045015/220045015_FinalOrder_03092009.pdf\n\n220045015_FinalOrder_03092009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220045015/220045015_FinalOrder_03092009_text.pdf\n\n220045015_FinalOrder_03092009_text.pdf\n\nMr. David Carroll\nVice President and General Counsel\nHunt Crude Oil Supply Company\n100 Town Center Blvd., Suite 300\nTuscaloosa, AL 35406-1829\nRE: CPF No. 2-2004-5015\nDear Mr. Carroll:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $5,000. It further finds that you have completed the actions\nspecified in the Notice that were needed to bring Hunt Crude Oil Supply Company into\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations. I also acknowledge receipt of, and accept, your\npayment of August 24, 2004, in the amount of $5,000 in satisfaction of the civil penalty assessed\nin the Final Order. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service\nof that document 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: Caroll D. Pellegrin, Environmental & Safety Representative, Hunt Crude Oil Supply Co.\nLinda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\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 )\nHunt Crude Oil Supply Company, ) CPF No. 2-2004-5015\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 8 and 9, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Research and\nSpecial Programs Administration (RSPA),\n1\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an\ninspection of the Operator Qualification (OQ) Plan of Hunt Crude Oil Supply Company (Hunt or\nRespondent) at the company’s offices in Melvin, Alabama. Hunt, a petroleum refining and\nmarketing company, owns and operates storage and transportation facilities in Mobile, Alabama,\nWestern and Eastern Mississippi, and Central New Jersey. As a result of the inspection, the\nDirector, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 22, 2004, a\nNotice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Hunt committed\ncertain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for the\nalleged violations. The Notice also proposed a compliance order directing Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBy letter dated August 25, 2004, Respondent responded to Items 1, 2, and 4 in the Notice and\nrequested an extension of time to respond to Items 3 and 5 (Response). The company was\ngranted an extension until December 1, 2004, to respond to Item 3 and until March 1, 2005, to\nrespond to Item 5. Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation but provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing,\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was\ncreated to administer the federal hazardous materials and pipeline safety program in the U. S. Department of\nTransportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public\nLaw 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70 Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005)\nredelegating the pipeline safety functions from RSPA to the Administrator, PHMSA.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Hunt did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.503, which states, in relevant\npart:\n§ 195.503 Definitions.\n. . . .\nQualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:\n(a) Perform assigned covered tasks and\n(b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.\nThe Notice alleged that Hunt failed to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing\ncovered tasks on its pipeline facilities were qualified to recognize and react to all abnormal\noperating conditions (AOCs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had identified\nonly a limited list of task-specific AOCs and had not developed a comprehensive or generic list\nof AOCs for individuals working on its facilities.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation. In response to the Notice, Hunt submitted its generic\nAOC list and its training roster to show the individuals who had been trained and properly\nexamined on August 19-20 and 23-25, 2004, approximately one month after the company had\nreceived the Notice. After considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.503 by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks on its pipeline facilities were qualified to recognize and react to all AOCs.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.505, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The\nprogram shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to\nperform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\n. . .\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual’s qualifications is needed; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s Operator OQ Plan did not list all covered tasks that its\n\n\n\n3\npersonnel would perform and that it lacked a systematic approach for generating or identifying all\ncovered tasks that should be part of its OQ program. Respondent did not contest this allegation.\nIn response to the Notice, Hunt submitted the record of a meeting that the company conducted on\nAugust 11, 2004, following receipt of the Notice, to show that it had conducted a review of\npossible covered tasks. Respondent also submitted a completed list of covered tasks generated\nfrom the August 11, 2004, meeting.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505, by\nfailing to identify all covered tasks that its personnel would perform on its pipeline facilities and\nthe intervals at which those persons’ qualifications would need to be evaluated.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.505(b), as quoted above, by\nfailing to ensure through evaluation that all individuals performing covered tasks on its pipeline\nwere qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had developed evaluation\nmethods for its six original covered tasks but not for its new ones. Respondent did not contest\nthis allegation, but indicated that it had begun the development of training and evaluation\nmethods for the other covered tasks. After considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that all individuals\nperforming covered tasks on its pipeline were qualified.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.505(c), as quoted\nabove, by failing to have and follow an OQ program that allowed individuals who were not\nqualified to perform covered tasks to do so, provided they were directed and observed by\nindividuals who were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Hunt had not defined under\nwhat conditions a qualified person could direct and observe one or more unqualified persons.\nFor example, Respondent had not identified welding tasks as ones that could not be directed and\nobserved by a qualified individual.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation, but submitted a copy of the company’s “Covered Task\nList” that had been compiled after the inspection. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.505(c) by failing to have and follow a\nwritten OQ program containing provisions that allowed individuals who were not qualified to\nperform covered tasks to do so, provided they were directed and observed by individuals who\nwere properly qualified.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.509(b) and (c), which state:\n§ 195.509 General.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals\nperforming covered tasks by October 28, 2002.\n(c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole evaluation method for\nindividuals who were performing a covered task prior to October 26, 1999.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.509(c) by failing to properly qualify certain\nHunt employees prior to the October 28, 2002, deadline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent failed to train its employees to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions,\nwhich is one of the prerequisites for being “qualified” under § 195.503. The Notice further\nalleged that Respondent failed to properly qualify one particular employee, because the company\nused work performance history review as the sole evaluation method to qualify the employee but\nsuch method was not permitted under the regulation. Subsection (c) of § 195.509 provides that\nsuch method may only be used for employees who were performing the covered task prior to\nOctober 26, 1999. This employee, however, did not begin on-the-job training to perform the\ncovered task for Respondent until after the 1999 cut-off date.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation, but in its Response indicated that it had begun to\nqualify all employees per its new OQ Plan. Without the required records and history, it is\ndifficult for an operator to demonstrate that its employees are properly qualified to perform\nspecific covered tasks or that they performed such tasks on a regular basis prior to the effective\ndate of the regulation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §195.509(b) and (c) by failing to demonstrate compliance with the transitional\nOQ requirements prior to the October 28, 2002 deadline.\n2\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; degree of Respondent's culpability, the history of\nRespondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, and any effect that the\npenalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in\nattempting to comply with pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic\nbenefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and\nsuch other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a $5,000 civil penalty for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nItem 5 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.509(c), as\nRespondent failed to use an appropriate evaluation method to qualify one particular employee to\n2 Final Rule, Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel, 64 FR 46853, August 27, 1999.\n\n\n\n5\nperform covered tasks. As discussed above, Hunt used the employee’s work performance history\nreview as the sole evaluation method to qualify the individual, but that employee did not start on-\nthe-job training for the covered task until after the October 26, 1999, cut-off date. Respondent\nhas not shown any circumstances that would have prevented or justified it from failing to use an\nappropriate evaluation method to qualify the employee. Having a complete OQ program in place\nto ensure that individuals performing covered tasks are properly qualified is an important part of\npipeline safety. When an operator fails to conduct and ensure proper OQ methods, it runs the\nrisk that a task essential in the day-to-day operation of the pipeline may be incorrectly performed\non its facility, thereby increasing the risk of harm to the public and the environment.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,000, which amount has already been paid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with regards to Items 1- 5 in the Notice for violations\nof 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the\nfollowing actions specified in the proposed Compliance Order:\n1. 49 C.F.R. §195.503(b) -- Respondent has provided evidence that it has developed a\ngeneric AOC list and qualified each employee who performs covered tasks to recognize\nand react to each AOC on the list. (Item1)\n2. 49 C.F.R. §195.505(a) and (g)-- Respondent has provided evidence that it has determined\nall covered tasks that should be part of its OQ program. (Item 2)\n3. 49 C.F.R. §195.505(b)-- Respondent has provided evidence that it has developed\nevaluation methods for each covered task, including test knowledge, skills and abilities\nthat are needed to perform each task. (Item 3)\n4. 49 C.F.R. §195.505(c)-- Respondent has provided evidence that it has defined the number\nof non-qualified persons (span of control) that a qualified individual can direct and\nobserve at one time for each covered task, including definitions for covered tasks that\ncannot be directed and observed. (Item 4)\n5. 49 C.F.R. §195.509(b) and (c) -- Respondent has provided evidence that it has qualified\nits employees in conformity with its new OQ plan. (Item 5)\n\n\n\n6\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15306}