# CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420058008_FinalOrder_04162008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420058008/420058008_FinalOrder_04162008.pdf

420058008_finalorder_04162008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420058008/420058008_finalorder_04162008_text.pdf

420058008_finalorder_04162008_text.pdf

O
U S Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave S E
Washington DG 20590
APR 1 6 2008
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED
Ms. Rebecca B Roberts
President
Chevron Pipe Line Company
4800 Fomnace Pl
Bellaire, TX 77401-2324
Re: CPF No. 4-2005-SOOS
Dear Ms Roberts:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation
and assesses a civil penalty of $41, 000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final
Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment, Your receipt of the Final
Order constitutes service of the document under 49 C. F. R ( 190. 5
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Admimstrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20590
In the Matter of
Chevron Pipe Line Company,
Respondent
CPF No. 4-2005-8008
FINAL ORDER
On October 19-20, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S, C. ) 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of Chevron Pipe Line Company's (Respondent's) operator
qualification (OQ) program and related records in Houston, Texas. Respondent operates pipeline
systems throughout the United States that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, highly
volatile liquids, carbon dioxide, and natural gas As a result of the inspection, the Director,
Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 9, 2005, a Notice of
Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) In accordance with 49 C. F. R
) 190, 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C. F. R.
Parts 192 and 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $41, 000 for the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Respondent responded to the
Notice by letter dated November 22, 2005 (Response). Respondent provided information
regarding the allegations of violation and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced to
$10, 000. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. Parts 192 and 195, as follows:
Item 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. )) 192. 805(b) and 195 505(b),
which state:
g[g] 192. 805 [and 195. 505] — Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(a)
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified. . . .



g [g] 192. S03 [and 195. 503] — Definitions.
Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
(a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and
(b) Recogmze and react to abnormal operating conditions.
g[g] 192. S09 [and 195. 509] — General.
(a)
(c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole evaluation
method for individuals who were performing a covered task prior to October 26,
1999.
(d) After October 28, 2002, work performance history may not be used as a
sole evaluation method. . . .
Item 1A in the Notice alleged that for its natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operations,
Respondent violated $$ 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b), respectively, by failing to ensure that
individuals performing covered tasks were properly qualified. Specifically, Item 1A alleged that
Respondent used work performance history reviews (WPHRs) as the sole evaluation method to
qualify many individuals performing covered tasks, but failed to verify that those individuals had
been performing the covered tasks satisfactorily on a regular basis prior to October 26, 1999.
Under $$ 192. 809(c) and 195, 509(c), only individuals who were performing a covered task prior
to October 26, 1999 could be qualified using WPHR as the sole evaluation method.
In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that at the time of the OPS inspection in October
2003, many of its personnel who were subject to its OQ program had been qualified using
WPHR as the sole evaluation method. Respondent explained that its process at the time was to
keep documents supporting WPHR qualifications in the company's field office files, rather than
at the home office where the OPS inspection took place. Respondent indicated that the home
office files examined by OPS contained documentation of completed qualifications, but "not
necessarily all of the supporting documents needed to show regulatory compliance. " Respondent
indicated that it performed a post-inspection audit of its field office files and found that many of
the documents supporting WPHR qualifications had been available at the time of the inspection.
Unfortunately, Respondent did not submit any of those documents in its Response. As a result, I
find the evidence in the record shows that Respondent did not verify whether individuals
qualified using WPHR as the sole evaluation method had in fact been performing the covered
tasks satisfactorily on a regular basis prior to October 26, 1999. Accordingly, I find Respondent
violated $$ 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals
performing covered tasks were properly qualified.
Item 1B in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated $) 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b), as quoted
above, by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were
qualified and could recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs). Specifically,
Item 1B alleged that Respondent did not conduct written or oral examinations, training, or other
type of evaluation to determine whether individuals who were qualified using WPHR as the sole
evaluation method could also recognize and react to AOCs. Under )$ 192, 803 and 195. 503,
Respondent may only qualify individuals who are able to recognize and react to AOCs.



In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that some individuals who were qualified using
WPHR as the sole evaluation method did not receive AOC training and assessment, but indicated
that corrective measures have been taken to ensure that all qualified individuals are able to
recognize and react to AOCs. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $$ 192 805(b) and
195. 505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals qualified using WPHR as the
sole evaluation method were also able to recognize and react to AOCs.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U, S. C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of
violations. The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41, 000 for the violations of 49 C. F. R.
$) 192. 805(b) and 195. 505(b).
49 U, S, C. ) 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; degree of Respondent's culpability; history of
Respondent's prior violations; Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, any effect of the penalty
on Respondent's ability to continue doing business; and Respondent's good faith in attempting to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may also consider the economic
benefit gained by Respondent from the violation(s) without any reduction because of subsequent
damages; and such other matters that ~ustice requires.
The Federal pipeline safety OQ regulations are designed to ensure a qualified work force and
reduce the probability and consequence of a pipeline incident caused by human error.
Respondent was found to have improperly qualified individuals who were performing covered
tasks on Respondent's pipeline system. Respondent used WPHR as the sole evaluation method
for many individuals, but the company did not verify that the individuals had been performing
the covered tasks satisfactorily on a regular basis prior to October 26, 1999, a threshold
requirement for individuals being qualified by WPHR. (WPHR is no longer permitted as the
sole evaluation method. ) Respondent also failed to ensure that individuals performing covered
tasks were able to recognize and react to AOCs.
These violations of the OQ regulations increased the risk of human error adversely affecting the
safe operation and integrity of Respondent's pipeline system. The violations also increased the
risk that an abnormal operating condition would not be promptly identified and addressed in a
manner that would ensure safety. Respondent's violation of $) 192, 805(b) and 195. 505(b)
constituted a safety risk for which Respondent is culpable.
In its Response, Respondent provided information concerning the development of its OQ plan,
including revisions that were made to the plan in April 2002 to meet the regulatory deadline for
qualifications. Respondent also contended that the OPS inspection m October 2003 did not
review all of the relevant documentation because some material was located off-site at the
company's field offices. However, in its Response, Respondent failed to submit any of the
referenced material for OPS to review.



Respondent further contended that it has taken certain corrective actions to remediate the issues
identified in the Notice. Respondent stated that it corrected discrepancies in its records,
requalified employees, trained and assessed employees' abilities with respect to AOCs, and is
maintaining proper compliance documentation, According to Respondent, OPS performed a
subsequent OQ inspection and had not identified any outstanding issues.
Respondent has an affirmative obligation to comply with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its pipeline system. Actions taken by Respondent in this case to come into
compliance with the pipeline safety OQ regulations after the OPS inspection had taken place do
not justify a reduction in the proposed civil penalty.
I find that the information submitted by Respondent does not warrant reducing the civil penalty
in this matter. Accordingly, havmg reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $41, 000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C. F, R. ) 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure, Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $41, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U. S. C. $ 3717, 31 C. F. R. ) 901. 9, and 49 C. F. R. $ 89. 23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Court.
Under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed However, if Respondent submits
payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the
right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall
be effective upon receipt,
APR 1 6 ZM8
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Date Issued
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 12997