{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520070024W","title":"QEP MARKETING COMPANY — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-11-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.905(c), 192.947(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520070024w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520070024w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520070024w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520070024W","body":"Warning Letter involving QEP MARKETING COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.905(c),  192.947(d). The case was opened on 2007-11-16 and is reported as closed as of 2007-11-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520070024W_Warning Letter_11162007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520070024W/520070024W_Warning%20Letter_11162007.pdf\n\n520070024W_Warning Letter_11162007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520070024W/520070024W_Warning%20Letter_11162007_text.pdf\n\n520070024W_Warning Letter_11162007_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 16, 2007\nMr. Perry H. Richards\nGeneral Manager\nQuestar Energy Trading\n1050 17th Street\nDenver, CO 80265\nCPF 5-2007-0024W\nDear Mr. Richards:\nOn November 6, 2007, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Questar\nEnergy Trading’s (QET) procedures and records for your Integrity Management Program (IMP)\nin Evanston, Wyoming.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §192.947 What records must an operator keep?\n§192.947 (d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed\nand used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment plan\nand integrity management program. Documents include those developed and used\nin support of any identification, calculation, amendment, modification, justification,\ndeviation and determination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate\nany of the program elements;\n§192.905 (a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission\npipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high\nconsequence areas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in §\n192.903 to identify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to\nits entire pipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual\n\n\n\nportions of the pipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity\nmanagement program which method it is applying to each portion of the operator's\npipeline system. The description must include the potential impact radius when\nutilized to establish a high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for guidance on\nidentifying high consequence areas.)\n• Item 1A : §192.947(d)\nThere was no documentation available to verify that a system map was used to\ndetermine HCAs as required in their HCA Process. [A.01.d]\nEvidence: QET did not have any documentation to show that a system map was\navailable to identify the BP facility and verify that the facility is located outside of an\nHCA per class location study as specified in their operations and maintenance (O&M)\nprocedures.\n2. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission pipeline\nsystem are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high consequence\nareas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in § 192.903 to\nidentify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to its entire\npipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual portions of the\npipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity management program\nwhich method it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipeline system. The\ndescription must include the potential impact radius when utilized to establish a\nhigh consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for guidance on identifying high\nconsequence areas.)\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of\nthis subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation\nand maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency\nresponse or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of\nlocations that meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include\nofficials on a local emergency planning commission or relevant Native American\ntribal officials.\n(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning\nresponsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to identify\nan identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as\nappropriate, to identify these sites.\n(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or\n(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government\nagency; or\n(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map maintained\nby or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency and available to\nthe general public.\n2\n\n\n\n(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the area\naround a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high consequence area\ncould satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the operator must complete the\nevaluation using method (1) or (2). If the segment is determined to meet the\ndefinition as a high consequence area, it must be incorporated into the operator's\nbaseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year from the date\nthe area is identified.\n• Item 2A: §192.905(c)\nQET did not contact public officials, as required by the Integrity Management Rule, in\norder to determine identified sites for HCA determination by the December 17, 2004\ndeadline. [A.03.b]\nEvidence: QET could not produce any documentation that public officials were\ncontacted prior to December 17, 2004 in order to locate identified sites as required.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this\nletter. Failure to do so will result in Questar Energy Trading being subject to additional\nenforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 5-2007-0024W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Gilliam (#120027)\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":7231}