{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520035023","title":"UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (UOCC) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-08-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(b), 195.507(b), 195.509(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035023.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035023.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035023","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520035023","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (UOCC). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(b),  195.507(b),  195.509(d). The case was opened on 2003-08-22 and is reported as closed as of 2009-08-17. Proposed civil penalty: $100,000. Assessed civil penalty: $75,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520035023_Final Order_06182008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035023/520035023_Final%20Order_06182008.pdf\n\n520035023_final order_06182008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035023/520035023_final%20order_06182008_text.pdf\n\n520035023_final order_06182008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\ngUN 1 8 2008\nMr. John Zager\nCJeneral Manager\nUnion Oil Company of California\n909 West 9 Avenue\nAnchorage, AK 99501\nRe: CPF No. 5-2003-5023\nDear Mr. Zager:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $75, 000, and specifies actions to be taken to\ncomply with this agency's pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument 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\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Mare D. Bond, Senior Counsel, Chevron North America Exploration and\nProduction Company\nCERTIFIED 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\n)\nIn the Matter of\n)\n)\nUnion Oil Company of California, )\nRespondent\n)\n)\nCPF No. 5-2003-5023\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 16-17, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, representatives of the Research and\nSpecial Programs Administration, ' Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site\npipeline safety inspection of the Operator Quahfication (OQ) records and procedures for\nUnocal Alaska, a subsidiary of Union Oil Company of California (Union Oil or\nRespondent) at Respondent's offices in Anchorage, Alaska. As a result of the\ninspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA (Director), issued to Respondent, by\nletter dated August 22, 2003, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty,\nProposed Compliance Order, and Warning (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. (\n190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $$\n195. 505(b), 195. 507(b) and 195. 509, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $100, 000 for\nthe alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted a probable violation of 49 C. F. R. Part 195 and warning Respondent to take\nappropriate corrective action to address the probable violation or be subject to future\nenforcement action.\n' Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Matenals Safety Admmistration (PHMSA)\nsucceeded the Research and Special Programs Admmistration (RSPA) as the agency responsible for\nregulatmg pipehne safety. See Norman Y Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, Pub\nL. No. 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423 See also 70 Fed Reg 8299, 8301-8302 (2005) (redelegating authority to\nthe Administrator of PHMSA).\n' This action was originally brought against Unocal Alaska, a subsidiary of Umon Oil Company of\nCalifornia In 2005, Umon Oil Company of Califorma merged with Chevron Corporation The pipelme\nfacihties subject to this Order are currently operated by Union Oil Company of Califorma as a subsidiary of\nChevron Corporation\n\n\n\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 26, 2003 (Response).\nRespondent contested some of the allegations of violation and provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it planned to take. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent contested some of the allegations in the Notice and offered\ninformation in explanation of others, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 505(b), which\nstates:\n49 C. F. R. g 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; . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide procedures in its written OQ\nprogram to ensure that contractor personnel performing covered tasks on Respondent's\npipeline facilities were qualified to perform those tasks. The Notice also alleged that\nRespondent failed to provide any data that such contractor personnel were qualified.\nRespondent did not dispute this allegation. In its Response, Respondent indicated that it\nwould qualify its contractor personnel. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC. F. R. $ 195. 505(b) by failing to have and follow written procedures to ensure through\nevaluation that contractors performing covered tasks on Respondent's pipeline facilities\nwere qualified.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 505(b), as quoted\nabove, by failing to provide procedures to ensure that individuals performing covered\ntasks were qualified. The term \"qualified\" is defined in ) 195. 503, which states:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 503 Definitions.\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 term \"abnormal operating condition\" is also defined in $ 195. 503:\nAbnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the\noperator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation from\nnormal operations that may:\n\n\n\n(a) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or\n(b) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to ensure that individuals were\nproperly qualified by not addressing abnormal operating conditions (AOCs) in its written\nOQ program. In addition, the Notice alleged that Respondent's written OQ program did\nnot include a means to ensure that personnel performing covered tasks on Respondent's\npipeline facility could recognize and react to AOCs.\nIn its Response, Respondent asserted that PHMSA's allegation was \"not entirely correct. \"\nIt explained that each of its Pipeline Specific Operations Manuals contained a section that\nlisted some AOCs and how to respond to them. However, Respondent admitted that it\nhad not addressed AOCs for every covered task. The company indicated that it planned\nto further develop AOCs and responses to AOCs in its written OQ program.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ( 195. 505(b) by failing to ensure\nthrough evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were properly \"qualified, \"\nas that term is defined in ( 195. 503. This was because its written OQ program neither\nincluded AOCs for every covered task nor the means to evaluate whether individuals\ncould recognize and react to such AOCs.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ($ 195. 505(b), as quoted\nabove, and 195. 509(c), and (d), which states:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 509 General.\n(a) \"\n(c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole\nevaluation method for individuals who were performing a covered task\nprior to October 26, 1999,\n(d) After October 28, 2002, work performance history may not be\nused as a sole evaluation method.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to appropriately evaluate and qualify nine (9)\nindividuals who were hired after October 26, 1999, because the company used work\nperformance history review (WPHR) as the sole evaluation method for qualifying them.\nThe Notice also alleged that Respondent failed to appropriately evaluate and qualify one\n(1) employee hired before October 26, 1999, because it allowed that employee to\nevaluate himself. Respondent did not dispute this allegation, In its Response,\nRespondent stated that it would review its qualification records and re-qualify individuals\nwho had been incorrectly qualified.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F, R, $$ 195. 505(b) and 195. 509 (c)\nand (d) by failing to appropriately evaluate and qualify nine (9) individuals hired after\nOctober 26, 1999, and one (1) individual hired before that date.\nItem 4B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 507(b), which\nstates:\n\n\n\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 507(b) Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) \"~\n(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall\nbe maintained while the individual is performing the covered task.\nRecords of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer\nperforming covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years,\nItem 4B in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide OQ records for two of its\npersonnel and that no records were available for contractor personnel performing covered\ntasks. Respondent did not dispute this allegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 507(b) by failing to maintain OQ records for two (2) of its\npersonnel and by failing to maintain records for contractor personnel hired by Union Oil\nand performing covered tasks.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 4A, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, the item is\nconsidered to be a warning item. The warning was for:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 507(b) (Notice Item 4A) — Respondent's alleged failure to\nproperly maintain its OQ records demonstrating compliance with Subpart G of\nPart 195. The Notice also indicated that records were not being maintained as\nrequired by Respondent's own written OQ program requirements. At the time of\nthe inspection, Respondent's written OQ procedures specified that the OQ records\nwere maintained at Respondent's Kenai, Alaska, offices. During the inspection,\nPHMSA inspectors observed that the Kenai office had been closed seven (7)\nmonths earlier, that the OQ records had been moved to another location, and that\nno Union Oil staff had maintained the records since the move.\nI find, pursuant to 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 205, that a probable violation of 49 C. F. R. $\n195. 507(b) (Notice Item 4A) has occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct\nsuch condition. In the event that OPS finds a violation for this item in a subsequent\ninspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C, F. R. ) 190, 225 require that, in determining the amount of the\ncivil penalty, I consider the following criteria: the natine, circumstances, and gravity of\nthe violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent's\nculpability; the history of Respondent's prior offenses; the Respondent's ability to pay\n\n\n\nthe penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the\nviolation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters\nas justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $100, 000 for the\nviolations.\nThe OQ regulations are intended to ensure that each pipeline operator take appropriate and\neffective action to determine that its work force is qualified and thereby reduce the\nprobability and consequences of pipeline incidents caused by human error. Respondent's\nfailure to comply with various parts of the OQ regulations reduced the safety of its pipeline\nsystem and reflected an insufficient effort by the company to design and implement an OQ\nprogram that met the purpose and requirements of Subpart G,\nWith respect to Item 1 in the Notice, regarding Respondent's failure to have and follow\nwritten procedures to ensure that contractor personnel were qualified, the Notice\nproposed a civil penalty of $25, 000. Contractors must be as qualified to perform covered\ntasks as Respondent's own employees; they both may face AOCs or other critical\nsituations and have to react appropriately to ensure pipeline safety. Respondent has\nprovided no information or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the proposed\ncivil penalty. Therefore, I assess a civil penalty of $25, 000 for Item 1.\nWith respect to Item 2 in the Notice, regarding Respondent's failure to address AOCs in\nits written OQ plan, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50, 000. This violation\nreduced pipeline safety because it increased the risk that an AOC would not be promptly\nidentified and safely addressed by qualified personnel.\nThe Director reviewed Respondent's Response to Item 2 and has indicated that, as of the\ntime of the inspection, Respondent had provided some AOC training for its personnel,\nthough not for all covered tasks as required by ) 195. 505(b). The fact that Respondent\nhad been providing some training on AOCs reduces the gravity of this violation and\nindicates that Respondent was acting with a degree of good faith in attempting to comply\nwith the regulations. In light of this information and its impact on the application of the\nassessment criteria, I find that grounds exist in this particular case for reduction of the\ncivil penalty for Item 2 from $50, 000 to $25, 000.\nWith respect to Item 3 in the Notice, regarding Respondent's failure to appropriately\nevaluate and qualify certain individuals, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20, 000.\nRespondent was found to have inappropriately used WPHR as the sole method of\nevaluation for certain individuals who performed covered tasks on Respondent's pipeline\nsystem. Respondent was also found to have inappropriately allowed an individual\nperforming covered tasks to qualify himself. As with other Items in the Notice, this\naction reduced pipeline safety because unqualified individuals were permitted to perform\ncovered tasks. Respondent has provided no information or arguments that would warrant\na reduction in the civil penalty. Therefore, I assess a civil penalty of $20, 000 for Item 3.\nWith respect to Item 4B in the Notice, regarding Respondent's failure to provide OQ\nrecords for two (2) of its personnel and for contractor personnel, the Notice proposed a\n\n\n\ncivil penalty of $5, 000. Respondent's failure to provide OQ records made it difficult, if\nnot impossible, to accmately determine whether individuals performing covered tasks on\nits pipeline system were properly qualified. Respondent's recordkeeping failure created\nthe risk that an unqualified individual would perform a covered task on Respondent's\npipeline system. Respondent has provided no information or arguments that would\nwarrant a reduction in the civil penalty, Therefore, I assess a civil penalty of $5, 000 for\nItem 4B.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each\nItem, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $75, 000.\nRespondent has provided no information indicating that its payment of the penalty would\nadversely affect its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the\nFederal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S, Treasiuy.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure.\nQuestions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division\n(AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O.\nBox 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $75, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current\nannual rate in accordance with 31 U. S. C. ) 3717, 31 C. F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. $\n89. 23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (610) per\nannum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore,\nfailure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General\nfor appropriate action in a United States District Court,\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 195.\nUnder 49 U, S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous\nliquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49\nU. S. C. $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 217, Respondent is ordered to take the following\nactions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations,\nRespondent shall-\n1. With regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to Respondent's OQ program,\ndevelop written OQ program procedures to ensure that contractor personnel\nperforming covered tasks on Respondent's pipeline facilities are qualified.\n\n\n\nDevelop plans and a schedule for qualifying such contractor personnel,\nSubmit to the Director the procedures, plans and schedule within sixty (60) days\nof receipt of the Final Order.\nEvaluate and qualify all contractor personnel performing covered tasks on\nRespondent's pipeline facilities within four (4) months of receipt of this Final\nOrder.\n2. With regard to Item 2 of the Notice pertaining to Respondent's OQ program,\nreview each covered task applicable to Respondent's pipeline facilities and\ndetermine and document the possible AOCs that could be encountered while\nperforming each covered task. Also determine those AOCs that are generically\nfound on Respondent's pipeline facilities. Submit to the Director the list of AOCs\ndetermined and their relationship to specific covered tasks and to general\noperations within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Final Order.\nSubmit to the Director written OQ program procedures to ensure that all\npersonnel performing covered tasks, as documented in Respondent's database, are\npresented with the AOCs and that they can recognize and react to such AOCs.\nSubmit a schedule for implementing such procedure. The presentation of AOCs\nto personnel performing covered tasks shall be completed and documentation of\nsuch presentation shall be submitted within four (4) months of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n3. With regard to Item 3 of the Notice pertaining to the evaluation methods in\nRespondent's OQ program, review the qualification records of each individual for\neach covered task and determine which individuals hired after October 26, 1999,\nwere qualified solely by work performance history review. Review qualification\nrecords to determine if any individual, hired at any time, served as his or her own\nevaluator, using any evaluation method, for purposes of OQ. Develop a list of the\nindividuals which meet the criteria listed above. Develop OQ program\nprocedures that provide for proper evaluation and qualification of the individuals\non the list. Develop a schedule for such evaluation and qualification.\nSubmit the list, procedures and schedule to the Director within sixty (60) days of\nreceipt of the Final Order. Complete evaluation and qualification of listed\nindividuals within four (4) months of receipt of the Final Order.\n4. With regard to Item 4B of the Notice pertaining to OQ program record keeping,\nreview the records of existing personnel to determine if any personnel who\nperform covered tasks on Respondent's pipeline facilities are not qualified or not\nincluded in Respondent's OQ database. Develop a list of those individuals whose\nOQ records are missing or who are not included in the OQ database. Develop\nplans and a schedule for the evaluation and qualification of the listed individuals.\nSubmit the list, plans and schedule to the Director within sixty (60) days of\nreceipt of the Final Order. Complete evaluation and qualification of listed\nindividuals within four (4) months of receipt of the Final Order.\n\n\n\n5. With regard to the requirements set out in paragraphs 1-4 above, submit all\nrequired records, and notice and documentation of the completion of required\nactions to the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, 123000 W. Dakota Ave.\nSuite\n,\n119, Lakewood, CO 80228.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items\nupon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for\nan extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues\nor in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United\nStates.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for\nReconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of\nRespondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the\nissue(s). The filing of the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty\nassessed. All other terms of the order, including any required corrective action, shall\nremain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\ngag & 8 2008\nDate Issued\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":22321}