{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520196001M","title":"DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. LP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-01-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.505(b), 195.505(c), 195.505(g).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520196001m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520196001m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520196001m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520196001M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(b),  195.505(c),  195.505(g). The case was opened on 2019-01-10 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-13. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520196001M_Amended Order Directing Amendment_04102020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Amended%20Order%20Directing%20Amendment_04102020.pdf\n\n520196001M_Amended Order Directing Amendment_04102020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Amended%20Order%20Directing%20Amendment_04102020_text.pdf\n\n520196001M_Closure Letter_10132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Closure%20Letter_10132020.pdf\n\n520196001M_Closure Letter_10132020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Closure%20Letter_10132020_text.pdf\n\n520196001M_Notice of Amendment_01102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_01102019.pdf\n\n520196001M_Notice of Amendment_01102019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_01102019_text.pdf\n\n520196001M_Operator Response to Notice_02062019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02062019.pdf\n\n520196001M_Order Directing Amendment_04062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_04062020.pdf\n\n520196001M_Order Directing Amendment_04062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520196001M/520196001M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_04062020_text.pdf\n\n520196001M_Amended Order Directing Amendment_04102020_text.pdf\n\nVIA EMAIL TO: dave.hager@dvn.com and marty.summers@dvn.com\nMr. Dave Hager\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nDevon Energy Corporation\ndba Devon Energy Production Company, LP\n333 West Sheridan Avenue\nOklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102\nRe: CPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nDear Mr. Hager:\nEnclosed please find the Amended Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced\ncase. It makes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that Devon Energy Corporation\namend certain written procedures. When the amendment of procedures is completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Amended Order Directing Amendment by e-mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Marty Summers, EHS Manager, Devon Energy Corporation\nVIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF 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__________________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nDevon Energy Corporation, ) CPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nd/b/a Devon Energy Production Company, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nAMENDED ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom July 30 to August 2, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the written operator qualification (OQ)\nprogram of Devon Energy Corporation (Devon or Respondent), a subsidiary of Devon Energy\nProduction Company, LP in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Devon is an independent oil and natural\ngas exploration and production company, with operations focused onshore in the United States.\nThe company operates CO2 pipelines and also produces approximately 140,000 barrels of oil,\n575 million cubic feet of natural gas and 80,000 barrels of natural gas liquids per day.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 10, 2019, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s OQ program\nand proposed requiring Devon to amend its procedures to ensure safe operation of its pipeline\nfacilities.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Devon responded to the Notice\nby letter dated February 6, 2019 (Response). The company contested the allegations of\ninadequacy, provided a summary of its position, and included information concerning changes\nthat it had made to its procedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\n1 Devon Energy Production Company, LP website, available at https://www.devonenergy.com/about-us (last\naccessed February 12, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) ...\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified; ....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s OQ Program had inadequate qualification methods used to\nensure that the individuals performing covered tasks remained qualified to perform those tasks.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the program did not differentiate between methods used for\ninitial qualification versus methods used for requalification. The Notice also alleged that\nDevon’s OQ Program did not specify standards for testing or performance evaluations, and that\nthe evaluation methods did not provide adequate criteria for evaluators to use to objectively\nverify individual employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. For example, the Notice alleged\nDevon’s methods for conducting testing did not ensure that qualified employees demonstrated\nknowledge of its operations and maintenance procedures.\nIn its Response, Devon stated that its OQ Program included adequate qualification methods to\nensure that the individuals performing covered tasks remained qualified to perform those tasks.\nIt explained that Section 5 of its OQ Program provides procedures for its qualification process.\nIt stated that it does not differentiate between evaluation methods for initial and requalification\nbecause the methods are the same. Section 5.1 of its OQ plan states that “all evaluations ... shall\nbe conducted in accordance with Veriforce Operator Qualification Personnel Evaluation Policies\nand Procedures” (included in Appendix 6 of its plan). Devon noted that it has incorporated\nVeriforce’s (a third party) Covered Task Evaluation Criteria, referenced in Appendix 5 of the\nProgram, to ensure each evaluator objectively verifies an individual’s knowledge, skills, and\nabilities for each Covered Task for both initial and subsequent requalifications.\nDevon also included an excerpt from its Evaluation Criteria, Form for CT 007 - Operate Valves.\nThis form requires the evaluator to evaluate the individual’s knowledge of “operator-approved\nprocedures” (i.e. Devon's applicable operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures) as part of\nthe evaluation process.\nI have reviewed Devon’s procedures and for the following reasons find them inadequate. While\nthe procedures include statements regarding requirements to be qualified and how to obtain\nknowledge and skills, there is not enough detail for individuals and evaluators to understand the\nmethods that will be used to ensure individuals remain qualified. Specifically, Devon must\nclarify in the program if the methods used for initial qualification and methods used for\nrequalification are the same. Likewise, though Appendix 5 directs the reader to the Veriforce\nwebsite to obtain current evaluation criteria, the Appendix fails to provide a link to the website.\nDevon must amend its procedures to either include the correct web address needed to access the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 3\nevaluation criteria or list the criteria directly into its procedures. Listing the criteria in the\nprocedures themselves provides the advantage of ensuring that the information is available in the\nevent that the website is unavailable or that criteria are added without Devon’s knowledge or\napproval. Also, if the website changes, the procedures must be updated accordingly.\nDevon relies on Veriforce’s Covered Task Evaluation Criteria, but the attached form is not\ntailored to Devon’s system. Devon may rely on an “off-the-shelf” OQ Program, but must ensure\nthat the program addresses the specific aspects of its own facility. For example, on the Form for\nCT 007 - Operate Valves, one question asks an individual to identify the most common types of\npipeline valves. Identifying types of common valves, however, might be irrelevant if the\noperator only has ball valves. Performing an inspection on a ball valve might be different than\nperforming an inspection on a gate valve. This question fails to critically evaluate whether the\nindividual has the specific knowledge necessary to perform valve operations on Devon’s system\npursuant to Devon's written procedures.\nThe following are other examples of how the procedures do not adequately provide criteria for\nevaluators to use to objectively verify individual employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities. It is\nunclear how an evaluator knows whether a test taker has “passed” the oral and action aspects of\nthe examination. Devon’s procedures do not provide criteria that ensure that internal evaluators\nare uniformly and objectively assessing candidates during these evaluations. Without such\ncriteria, Devon cannot be certain that qualifications are uniform, since what one evaluator finds\nsufficient might be rejected by another evaluator. This could lead to differences in the minimum\nlevels of skills and knowledge among Devon’s workforce.\nVeriforce’s generic evaluation criteria are insufficient to determine if an individual is qualified to\nperform covered tasks on Devon’s pipeline facility. Devon may rely on Verifore’s evaluation\ncriteria, but must also include questions and skill tests tailored specifically to Devon’s unique\nsystem and procedural requirements. It should also include specific information on how to score\nresults to promote uniformity and objective administration of the exams.\nAccordingly, I find that Devon’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Devon is ordered to\nmake revisions to its procedures to address the adequacies within 60 days of the issuance of the\nAmended Order Directing Amendment.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(c), which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) ...\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\nqualified; ...\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 4\nThe Notice alleged that Devon’s written OQ Program did not have an adequate procedure to\nsafely allow non-qualified individuals performing a covered task to be directed by a qualified\nindividual. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the procedures did not adequately address key\nfactors for span of control such as physical distance and communication barriers including noise\nlevels and language comprehension.\nIn its Response, Devon stated that Section 7 of its OQ Program includes adequate procedures to\nsafely allow non-qualified individuals to be directed by a qualified individual. It also stated that\nkey factors for span of control are addressed in sections 7.1 and 7.3 of the Devon OQ Program.\nIn Section 7, the program requires that “individuals who are not qualified to perform a task may\nperform a task if under the direct supervision of a qualified individual. Direct supervision\nincludes the ability to clearly observe the non-qualified individual’s activities and to take\nimmediate corrective actions when necessary.” In Section 7.1, the program states that a qualified\nperson directing and observing the non-qualified person must be able to intervene to either\nprevent or react to an abnormal operating condition (AOC). Devon’s span of control\nrequirements includes ensuring that no language barriers exist to preclude communications, the\nqualified personnel must be in a position where they can direct and observe performance, and\nintervene if necessary, and only one covered task can be directed and observed at a time. Devon\nadmitted that its procedures do not include provisions to address noise levels, but claimed that\nnoise levels are understood to be included in the provisions regarding language barriers.\nI find that Devon’s procedures are sufficient regarding physical proximity. While the procedures\ndo not specify a physical distance for observation, they do require that the qualified personnel be\nable to intervene if necessary. Because they must be standing close enough to the unqualified\npersonnel to be able to intervene, requiring a specific physical proximity is unnecessary.\nI do find, however, that Devon’s span of control procedures are insufficient in one respect.\nDevon’s span of control requirements do not address noise levels. The language of its\nprocedures specifically references “language barriers,” therefore it is unclear to the reader that\nnoise levels are meant to be inferred into these requirements. Devon must amend its procedures\nto specifically address noise levels.\nAccordingly, I find that Devon’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Devon is ordered to\nmake the above revisions to its procedures within 60 days of the issuance of the Amended Order\nDirecting Amendment.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g), which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) ...\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual's qualifications is needed; ...\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 5\nThe Notice alleged that Devon’s written OQ Program did not have an adequate process or\nprocedure to establish and justify reevaluation intervals, but rather uses an across-the board\napplication of extended reevaluation intervals with no documented justification or basis for that\ntime interval. Specifically, the Notice alleged Devon’s OQ Program did not consider the\ncomplexity of the task, the critical nature of the task, or the frequency of task performance (DIF\nanalysis) when establishing reevaluation intervals. The Notice also alleged that Devon’s\nProgram did not identify a minimum time frame for reevaluation upon failure of evaluation for a\ncovered task, nor did it establish how many times an individual would be allowed to attempt the\nrequalification process before the qualification is revoked.\nIn its Response, Devon stated that the NOA was inaccurate in claiming that it uses across the\nboard reevaluation intervals. It states that while many common covered tasks have 3-year\nintervals, complex tasks have a shorter reevaluation interval based on task complexity, critical\nnature, and frequency of performance. Devon explained that its Devon Pipeline Governance\nCommittee (PGC) reviewed and adopted Veriforce’s common covered task list (CCTL) and\nassociated evaluation criteria, which were created by comparing and reconciling the existing\ncovered task lists and criteria each client had developed/adopted. Subject matter experts utilized\ndata from their respective individual plans to decide on evaluation method, evaluation criteria,\nspan of control, and requalification intervals for each of the common covered tasks.\nAccording to Respondent, Veriforce established and facilitates the CCTL Steering Committee\nwhich reviews the adequacy of the CCTL (and underlying task evaluation criteria) on an ongoing\nbasis, as well as potential changes to the CCTL based on things such as stakeholder feedback and\nregulatory changes. The CCTL steering committee makes recommendations to the larger group\nof operators who have adopted the CCTL. Devon’s PGC considered this process within its\noverall evaluation of the Veriforce program, favoring a process that included input and\nexperiences from multiple pipeline operators across the county. In addition, Devon’s PGC\nincludes the appropriateness/effectiveness of task-specific span of control limits during its annual\nprogram evaluation.\nFinally, with regard to identifying a minimum time frame for reevaluation upon failure of\nevaluation for a covered task and establishing how many times an individual would be allowed\nto attempt requalification process before the qualification is revoked, Devon noted that its\nevaluation process specifically states that an individual is deemed “unqualified” in the event of\nan unsuccessful evaluation per Section 6.10.3 of Veriforce’s Policies and Procedures. In\naddition, Section 8 of Devon’s OQ program requires training for any individual failing any\nevaluation prior to any subsequent evaluation attempts. This training must be verified and\ndocumented prior to revaluation.\nHaving considered the evidence in the record, I find that Devon’s procedures establishing and\njustifying reevaluation intervals are insufficient. Devon relies on Veriforce’s criteria which are\nnot tailored to Devon’s specific system, but are created based on a wide pool of operators. In\norder to be effective, Devon’s procedures must be directly correlated to its own system. While\nDevon may have criteria for evaluating these intervals, it has not demonstrated that it actually\napplied that criteria rather than simply adopting Veriforce’s off-the-shelf OQ program.\nVeriforce must amend its procedures to provide clarity regarding how reevaluations are\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 6\nconducted and established in order to ensure uniformity. While Devon does have procedures in\nplace regarding its evaluation process, these procedures are inadequate because they do not\nfurther define a reevaluation period, but only require an employee to “successfully complete\nappropriate training before a subsequent evaluation is allowed” under Section 6.9.5. Details such\nas how many times an individual may be allowed to attempt the requalification process before\nthe qualification is revoked would be helpful for ensuring each employee is properly qualified.\nIt appears that Devon uses the same OQ Program for both its Part 192 and 195 facilities and has\nadopted Veriforce’s list of covered tasks. I recommend separating the covered tasks related to\nnatural gas and hazardous liquids into their own lists to reduce confusion that may arise if an\nemployee sees a task that does not apply to a certain facility.\nAccordingly, I find that Devon’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Devon is ordered to\nmake the above revisions to its procedures within 60 days of the issuance of the Amended Order\nDirecting Amendment.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $213,268, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each\nday the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nAmended Order Directing Amendment to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a\ncopy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days\nafter receipt of this Amended Order Directing Amendment by Respondent. Any petition\nsubmitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the\nAssociate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Amended Order Directing Amendment are effective upon\nservice in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nApril 10, 2020\n___________________________________ ______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520196001M_Notice of Amendment_01102019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 10, 2019\nMr.Dave Hager\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nDevon Energy Corporation\ndba Devon Energy Production Co. LP\n333 West Sheridan Avenue\nOklahoma City, OK 73102\nCPF 5-2019-6001M\nDear Mr. Ketter:\nFrom July 30 to August 2, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Devon\nEnergy Corporation’s (Devon) written Operator Qualification (OQ) Program in Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA identified apparent inadequacies within Devon’s written OQ\nprocedures, as described below:\n1. § 195.505 Qualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) …\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified; …\nDevon’s OQ Program had inadequate qualification methods used to ensure that the individuals\nperforming covered tasks remained qualified to perform those tasks. The program did not\n\n\n\ndifferentiate between methods used for initial qualification versus methods used for re-\nqualification.\nAlso, Devon’s OQ Program did not specify standards for testing or performance evaluations.\nThe evaluation methods did not provide adequate criteria for evaluators to use to objectively\nverify individual employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. For example, Devon’s methods for\nconducting testing did not ensure that qualified employees demonstrated knowledge of its\noperations and maintenance procedures.\n2. § 195.505 Qualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) …\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a\ncovered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified; …\nDevon’s written OQ Program did not have an adequate procedure to safely allow non-qualified\nindividuals to be directed by a qualified individual, that adequately addressed key factors for\nspan of control such as physical distance and communication barriers including noise levels and\nlanguage comprehension.\n3. § 195.505 Qualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) …\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividual’s qualifications is needed; …\nDevon’s written OQ Program did not have a process or procedure to establish and justify re-\nevaluation intervals. The operator uses an across-the board application of extended reevaluation\nintervals with no documented justification or basis for that time interval. Specifically, Devon’s\nOQ Program did not consider the complexity of the task, the critical nature of the task, or the\nfrequency of task performance (DIF analysis) when establishing re-evaluation intervals. Devon’s\nProgram also did not identify a minimum time-frame for re-evaluation upon failure of evaluation\nfor a covered task, nor did it establish how many times an individual would be allowed to\nattempt the requalification process before the qualification is revoked.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\n520196001M_Notice of Amendment_01102019_text\n\n\n\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your\nplans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend\nyour plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not\ncontesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within\n45 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good\ncause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended\nprocedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Devon maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures) and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Acting Director, Western Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please\nrefer to CPF 5-2018-6001M and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in\nelectronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nActing Director, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 (D. Fehling #160423)\nMr. Aaron Ketter, V.P. Rockies\n520196001M_Notice of Amendment_01102019_text\n\n520196001M_Order Directing Amendment_04062020_text.pdf\n\nVIA EMAIL TO: dave.hager@dvn.com and marty.summers@dvn.com\nMr. Dave Hager\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nDevon Energy Corporation\ndba Devon Energy Production Company, LP\n333 West Sheridan Avenue\nOklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102\nRe: CPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nDear Mr. Hager:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that Devon Energy Corporation amend\ncertain written procedures. When the amendment of procedures is completed, as determined by\nthe Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order\nDirecting Amendment by e-mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Marty Summers, EHS Manager, Devon Energy Corporation\nVIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF 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__________________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nDevon Energy Corporation, ) CPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nd/b/a Devon Energy Production Company, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom July 30 to August 2, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the written operator qualification (OQ)\nprogram of Devon Energy Corporation (Devon or Respondent), a subsidiary of Devon Energy\nProduction Company, LP in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Devon is an independent oil and natural\ngas exploration and production company, with operations focused onshore in the United States.\nThe company operates CO2 pipelines and also produces approximately 140,000 barrels of oil,\n575 million cubic feet of natural gas and 80,000 barrels of natural gas liquids per day.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 10, 2019, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s OQ program\nand proposed requiring Devon to amend its procedures to ensure safe operation of its pipeline\nfacilities.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Devon responded to the Notice\nby letter dated February 6, 2019 (Response). The company contested the allegations of\ninadequacy, provided a summary of its position, and included information concerning changes\nthat it had made to its procedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\n1 Devon Energy Production Company, LP website, available at https://www.devonenergy.com/about-us (last\naccessed February 12, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) ...\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified; ....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s OQ Program had inadequate qualification methods used to\nensure that the individuals performing covered tasks remained qualified to perform those tasks.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the program did not differentiate between methods used for\ninitial qualification versus methods used for requalification. The Notice also alleged that\nDevon’s OQ Program did not specify standards for testing or performance evaluations, and that\nthe evaluation methods did not provide adequate criteria for evaluators to use to objectively\nverify individual employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. For example, the Notice alleged\nDevon’s methods for conducting testing did not ensure that qualified employees demonstrated\nknowledge of its operations and maintenance procedures.\nIn its Response, Devon stated that its OQ Program included adequate qualification methods to\nensure that the individuals performing covered tasks remained qualified to perform those tasks.\nIt explained that Section 5 of its OQ Program provides procedures for its qualification process.\nIt stated that it does not differentiate between evaluation methods for initial and requalification\nbecause the methods are the same. Section 5.1 of its OQ plan states that “all evaluations ... shall\nbe conducted in accordance with Veriforce Operator Qualification Personnel Evaluation Policies\nand Procedures” (included in Appendix 6 of its plan). Devon noted that it has incorporated\nVeriforce’s (a third party) Covered Task Evaluation Criteria, referenced in Appendix 5 of the\nProgram, to ensure each evaluator objectively verifies an individual’s knowledge, skills, and\nabilities for each Covered Task for both initial and subsequent requalifications.\nDevon also included an excerpt from its Evaluation Criteria, Form for CT 007 - Operate Valves.\nThis form requires the evaluator to evaluate the individual’s knowledge of “operator-approved\nprocedures” (i.e. Devon's applicable operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures) as part of\nthe evaluation process.\nI have reviewed Devon’s procedures and for the following reasons find them inadequate. While\nthe procedures include statements regarding requirements to be qualified and how to obtain\nknowledge and skills, there is not enough detail for individuals and evaluators to understand the\nmethods that will be used to ensure individuals remain qualified. Specifically, Devon must\nclarify in the program if the methods used for initial qualification and methods used for\nrequalification are the same. Likewise, though Appendix 5 directs the reader to the Veriforce\nwebsite to obtain current evaluation criteria, the Appendix fails to provide a link to the website.\nDevon must amend its procedures to either include the correct web address needed to access the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 3\nevaluation criteria or list the criteria directly into its procedures. Listing the criteria in the\nprocedures themselves provides the advantage of ensuring that the information is available in the\nevent that the website is unavailable or that criteria are added without Devon’s knowledge or\napproval. Also, if the website changes, the procedures must be updated accordingly.\nDevon relies on Veriforce’s Covered Task Evaluation Criteria, but the attached form is not\ntailored to Devon’s system. Devon may rely on an “off-the-shelf” OQ Program, but must ensure\nthat the program addresses the specific aspects of its own facility. For example, on the Form for\nCT 007 - Operate Valves, one question asks an individual to identify the most common types of\npipeline valves. Identifying types of common valves, however, might be irrelevant if the\noperator only has ball valves. Performing an inspection on a ball valve might be different than\nperforming an inspection on a gate valve. This question fails to critically evaluate whether the\nindividual has the specific knowledge necessary to perform valve operations on Devon’s system\npursuant to Devon's written procedures.\nThe following are other examples of how the procedures do not adequately provide criteria for\nevaluators to use to objectively verify individual employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities. It is\nunclear how an evaluator knows whether a test taker has “passed” the oral and action aspects of\nthe examination. Devon’s procedures do not provide criteria that ensure that internal evaluators\nare uniformly and objectively assessing candidates during these evaluations. Without such\ncriteria, Devon cannot be certain that qualifications are uniform, since what one evaluator finds\nsufficient might be rejected by another evaluator. This could lead to differences in the minimum\nlevels of skills and knowledge among Devon’s workforce.\nVeriforce’s generic evaluation criteria are insufficient to determine if an individual\nis qualified to perform covered tasks on Devon’s pipeline facility. Devon may rely on Verifore’s\nevaluation criteria, but must also include questions and skill tests tailored specifically to\nDevon’s unique system and procedural requirements. It should also include specific information\non how to score results to promote uniformity and objective administration of the exams.\nAccordingly, I find that Devon’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Devon is ordered to\nmake revisions to its procedures to address the adequacies.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(c), which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) ...\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\nqualified; ...\nThe Notice alleged that Devon’s written OQ Program did not have an adequate procedure to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 4\nsafely allow non-qualified individuals performing a covered task to be directed by a qualified\nindividual. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the procedures did not adequately address key\nfactors for span of control such as physical distance and communication barriers including noise\nlevels and language comprehension.\nIn its Response, Devon stated that Section 7 of its OQ Program includes adequate procedures to\nsafely allow non-qualified individuals to be directed by a qualified individual. It also stated that\nkey factors for span of control are addressed in sections 7.1 and 7.3 of the Devon OQ Program.\nIn Section 7, the program requires that “individuals who are not qualified to perform a task may\nperform a task if under the direct supervision of a qualified individual. Direct supervision\nincludes the ability to clearly observe the non-qualified individual’s activities and to take\nimmediate corrective actions when necessary.” In Section 7.1, the program states that a qualified\nperson directing and observing the non-qualified person must be able to intervene to either\nprevent or react to an abnormal operating condition (AOC). Devon’s span of control\nrequirements includes ensuring that no language barriers exist to preclude communications, the\nqualified personnel must be in a position where they can direct and observe performance, and\nintervene if necessary, and only one covered task can be directed and observed at a time. Devon\nadmitted that its procedures do not include provisions to address noise levels, but claimed that\nnoise levels are understood to be included in the provisions regarding language barriers.\nI find that Devon’s procedures are sufficient regarding physical proximity. While the procedures\ndo not specify a physical distance for observation, they do require that the qualified personnel be\nable to intervene if necessary. Because they must be standing close enough to the unqualified\npersonnel to be able to intervene, requiring a specific physical proximity is unnecessary.\nI do find, however, that Devon’s span of control procedures are insufficient in one respect.\nDevon’s span of control requirements do not address noise levels. The language of its\nprocedures specifically references “language barriers,” therefore it is unclear to the reader that\nnoise levels are meant to be inferred into these requirements. Devon must amend its procedures\nto specifically address noise levels.\nAccordingly, I find that Devon’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Devon is ordered to\nmake the above revisions to its procedures.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g), which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) ...\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual's qualifications is needed; ...\nThe Notice alleged that Devon’s written OQ Program did not have an adequate process or\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2019-6001M\nPage 5\nprocedure to establish and","truncated":true,"body_characters":47895}