{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420058008","title":"CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-09-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.505(b), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420058008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420058008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420058008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420058008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.505(b),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2005-09-09 and is reported as closed as of 2008-05-14. Proposed civil penalty: $41,000. Assessed civil penalty: $41,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420058008_FinalOrder_04162008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420058008/420058008_FinalOrder_04162008.pdf\n\n420058008_finalorder_04162008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420058008/420058008_finalorder_04162008_text.pdf\n\n420058008_finalorder_04162008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DG 20590\nAPR 1 6 2008\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nMs. Rebecca B Roberts\nPresident\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fomnace Pl\nBellaire, TX 77401-2324\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-SOOS\nDear Ms Roberts:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $41, 000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment, Your receipt of the Final\nOrder constitutes service of the document under 49 C. F. R ( 190. 5\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Admimstrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nChevron Pipe Line Company,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 4-2005-8008\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 19-20, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S, C. ) 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of Chevron Pipe Line Company's (Respondent's) operator\nqualification (OQ) program and related records in Houston, Texas. Respondent operates pipeline\nsystems throughout the United States that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, highly\nvolatile liquids, carbon dioxide, and natural gas As a result of the inspection, the Director,\nSouthwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 9, 2005, a Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) In accordance with 49 C. F. R\n) 190, 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C. F. R.\nParts 192 and 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $41, 000 for the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Respondent responded to the\nNotice by letter dated November 22, 2005 (Response). Respondent provided information\nregarding the allegations of violation and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced to\n$10, 000. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. Parts 192 and 195, as follows:\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. )) 192. 805(b) and 195 505(b),\nwhich state:\ng[g] 192. 805 [and 195. 505] — Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The\nprogram shall include provisions to:\n(a)\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified. . . .\n\n\n\ng [g] 192. S03 [and 195. 503] — Definitions.\nQualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:\n(a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and\n(b) Recogmze and react to abnormal operating conditions.\ng[g] 192. S09 [and 195. 509] — General.\n(a)\n(c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole evaluation\nmethod for individuals who were performing a covered task prior to October 26,\n1999.\n(d) After October 28, 2002, work performance history may not be used as a\nsole evaluation method. . . .\nItem 1A in the Notice alleged that for its natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operations,\nRespondent violated $$ 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b), respectively, by failing to ensure that\nindividuals performing covered tasks were properly qualified. Specifically, Item 1A alleged that\nRespondent used work performance history reviews (WPHRs) as the sole evaluation method to\nqualify many individuals performing covered tasks, but failed to verify that those individuals had\nbeen performing the covered tasks satisfactorily on a regular basis prior to October 26, 1999.\nUnder $$ 192. 809(c) and 195, 509(c), only individuals who were performing a covered task prior\nto October 26, 1999 could be qualified using WPHR as the sole evaluation method.\nIn its Response, Respondent acknowledged that at the time of the OPS inspection in October\n2003, many of its personnel who were subject to its OQ program had been qualified using\nWPHR as the sole evaluation method. Respondent explained that its process at the time was to\nkeep documents supporting WPHR qualifications in the company's field office files, rather than\nat the home office where the OPS inspection took place. Respondent indicated that the home\noffice files examined by OPS contained documentation of completed qualifications, but \"not\nnecessarily all of the supporting documents needed to show regulatory compliance. \" Respondent\nindicated that it performed a post-inspection audit of its field office files and found that many of\nthe documents supporting WPHR qualifications had been available at the time of the inspection.\nUnfortunately, Respondent did not submit any of those documents in its Response. As a result, I\nfind the evidence in the record shows that Respondent did not verify whether individuals\nqualified using WPHR as the sole evaluation method had in fact been performing the covered\ntasks satisfactorily on a regular basis prior to October 26, 1999. Accordingly, I find Respondent\nviolated $$ 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals\nperforming covered tasks were properly qualified.\nItem 1B in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated $) 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b), as quoted\nabove, by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were\nqualified and could recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs). Specifically,\nItem 1B alleged that Respondent did not conduct written or oral examinations, training, or other\ntype of evaluation to determine whether individuals who were qualified using WPHR as the sole\nevaluation method could also recognize and react to AOCs. Under )$ 192, 803 and 195. 503,\nRespondent may only qualify individuals who are able to recognize and react to AOCs.\n\n\n\nIn its Response, Respondent acknowledged that some individuals who were qualified using\nWPHR as the sole evaluation method did not receive AOC training and assessment, but indicated\nthat corrective measures have been taken to ensure that all qualified individuals are able to\nrecognize and react to AOCs. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $$ 192 805(b) and\n195. 505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals qualified using WPHR as the\nsole evaluation method were also able to recognize and react to AOCs.\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. The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41, 000 for the violations of 49 C. F. R.\n$) 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b).\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; history of\nRespondent's prior violations; Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, any effect of the penalty\non Respondent's ability to continue doing business; and Respondent's good faith in attempting to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may also consider the economic\nbenefit gained by Respondent from the violation(s) without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages; and such other matters that ~ustice requires.\nThe Federal pipeline safety OQ regulations are designed to ensure a qualified work force and\nreduce the probability and consequence of a pipeline incident caused by human error.\nRespondent was found to have improperly qualified individuals who were performing covered\ntasks on Respondent's pipeline system. Respondent used WPHR as the sole evaluation method\nfor many individuals, but the company did not verify that the individuals had been performing\nthe covered tasks satisfactorily on a regular basis prior to October 26, 1999, a threshold\nrequirement for individuals being qualified by WPHR. (WPHR is no longer permitted as the\nsole evaluation method. ) Respondent also failed to ensure that individuals performing covered\ntasks were able to recognize and react to AOCs.\nThese violations of the OQ regulations increased the risk of human error adversely affecting the\nsafe operation and integrity of Respondent's pipeline system. The violations also increased the\nrisk that an abnormal operating condition would not be promptly identified and addressed in a\nmanner that would ensure safety. Respondent's violation of $) 192, 805(b) and 195. 505(b)\nconstituted a safety risk for which Respondent is culpable.\nIn its Response, Respondent provided information concerning the development of its OQ plan,\nincluding revisions that were made to the plan in April 2002 to meet the regulatory deadline for\nqualifications. Respondent also contended that the OPS inspection m October 2003 did not\nreview all of the relevant documentation because some material was located off-site at the\ncompany's field offices. However, in its Response, Respondent failed to submit any of the\nreferenced material for OPS to review.\n\n\n\nRespondent further contended that it has taken certain corrective actions to remediate the issues\nidentified in the Notice. Respondent stated that it corrected discrepancies in its records,\nrequalified employees, trained and assessed employees' abilities with respect to AOCs, and is\nmaintaining proper compliance documentation, According to Respondent, OPS performed a\nsubsequent OQ inspection and had not identified any outstanding issues.\nRespondent has an affirmative obligation to comply with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its pipeline system. Actions taken by Respondent in this case to come into\ncompliance with the pipeline safety OQ regulations after the OPS inspection had taken place do\nnot justify a reduction in the proposed civil penalty.\nI find that the information submitted by Respondent does not warrant reducing the civil penalty\nin this matter. Accordingly, havmg reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a total civil penalty of $41, 000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC. F, R. ) 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure, Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $41, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U. S. C. $ 3717, 31 C. F. R. ) 901. 9, and 49 C. F. R. $ 89. 23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall\nbe effective upon receipt,\nAPR 1 6 ZM8\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":12997}