{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420061006","title":"ZIA NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-02-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.805(a), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420061006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420061006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420061006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420061006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ZIA NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.805(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2006-02-21 and is reported as closed as of 2008-10-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420061006_FinalOrder_02282008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420061006/420061006_FinalOrder_02282008.pdf\n\n420061006_finalorder_02282008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420061006/420061006_finalorder_02282008_text.pdf\n\n420061006_finalorder_02282008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nFEB 2 8 7008\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nMr Jay Suko\nVice President of Operations, Natural Gas Processing\nZia Natural Gas Company\n101 Division Street\nP. O. Box 541\nWorland, WY 82401-2401\nRe: CPF No. 4-2006-1006\nDear Mr. Suko:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation\nand specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the\nterms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest\nRegion, this enforcement action will be closed, Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes\nservice of 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\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\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\nZia Natural Gas Company,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 4-2006-1006\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 28 and 29, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C, $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and the New\nMexico State Corporation Commission (Commission) conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of Zia Natural Gas Company's (Respondent) operator qualification (OQ) procedures\nand records in Worland, Wyoming. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest\nRegion, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 21, 2006, a Notice of Probable\nViolation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), In accordance with 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 207,\nthe Notice alleged that Respondent committed a violation of 49 C. F. R. Part 192 and proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation. The Notice also\ncontained a warning item in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 205.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 21, 2006 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegation of violation and provided information concerning the corrective actions\nit had taken. By letter dated April 10, 2006, Respondent provided additional information\nconcerning its corrective actions. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C. F. R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 805(a), which states:\ng 192. 805 — Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The\nprogram shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks. . . .\n\n\n\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to have a written qualification program that included\nprovisions to identify covered tasks. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the OPS\nand Commission inspection, Respondent's OQ program lacked identification of various covered\ntasks being performed on Respondent's pipeline system, including excavation, valve inspection,\nexternal corrosion, and small tubing/pipe assembly. In its Response, Respondent did not contest\nthis allegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 805(a) by failing to\nidentify all covered tasks in its OQ program.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC. F. R. $ 192. 805(a). Under 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas by pipeline or who owns or operates a gas pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601, Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations. Respondent must:\n1. Amend its OQ program by assigning to each covered task the following, as applicable:\nabnormal operating conditions; evaluation methods; and span-of-control ratios of\nqualified to non-qualified individuals.\n2. Submit documentation showing the OQ program has been amended as specified in Item 1\nof this compliance order within 60 days of receipt of this Final Order. Documentation\nshall be submitted to the Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 8701\nSouth Gessner, Suite 1110, Houston, TX 77074.\nThe Director, Southwest Region, OPS, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the\nrequired items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good\ncause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties up to\n$100, 000 per day for each violation and in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief\nin a district court of the United States.\nThe Director, Southwest Region, OPS, has indicated that Respondent has taken the following\nactions to satisfy the proposed compliance order:\nRespondent has reviewed and amended the covered task list associated with its pipeline\nfacilities and has assigned to each covered task evaluation intervals.\n\n\n\nSince these actions satisfied portions of the proposed compliance order, those terms are not\nincluded in this Final Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for the item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for a probable violation of 49 C. F. R. 192, 805(b), which states:\ng 192. 805 — Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The\nprogram shall include provisions to. . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified. . . .\ng 192. 803 — Definitions.\nEvaluation means a process, established and documented by the operator, to\ndetermine an individual's ability to perform a covered task by any of the\nfollowing. . .\n(c) Work performance history review. . . ,\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.\ng 192. 809 — General.\n(a)\n(d) After October 28, 2002, work performance history may not be used as a\nsole evaluation method. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated $ 192. 805(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation\nthat individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent qualified certain individuals using work performance history reviews as a sole\nevaluation method, but could not demonstrate to OPS and Commission inspectors that those\nevaluations took place prior to October 28, 2002, per )) 192, 805(b) and 192. 809(d). In addition,\nthe Notice alleged that Respondent could not demonstrate that it had determined through\nevaluation the same individuals were able to recognize and react to abnormal operating\nconditions, per $) 192. 805(b) and 192. 803.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest this allegation and provided information\ndemonstrating that it had taken certain actions to address this item. In accordance with 49 C, F. R,\n$ 190. 205, I find that a probable violation of 49 C. F. R. ) 192, 805(b) occurred, but that\nRespondent has addressed the item. Respondent is warned that if OPS finds a violation of this\nitem in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\n\n\n\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 terms of the order, including\nany required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\nFEB 8 8 F008\nDate Issued\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9049}