# QEP MARKETING COMPANY — Warning Letter

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

Official case documents:

520070024W_Warning Letter_11162007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520070024W/520070024W_Warning%20Letter_11162007.pdf

520070024W_Warning Letter_11162007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520070024W/520070024W_Warning%20Letter_11162007_text.pdf

520070024W_Warning Letter_11162007_text.pdf

WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 16, 2007
Mr. Perry H. Richards
General Manager
Questar Energy Trading
1050 17th Street
Denver, CO 80265
CPF 5-2007-0024W
Dear Mr. Richards:
On November 6, 2007, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Questar
Energy Trading’s (QET) procedures and records for your Integrity Management Program (IMP)
in Evanston, Wyoming.
As a result of the inspection, it appears you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline
Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violations are:
1. §192.947 What records must an operator keep?
§192.947 (d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed
and used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment plan
and integrity management program. Documents include those developed and used
in support of any identification, calculation, amendment, modification, justification,
deviation and determination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate
any of the program elements;
§192.905 (a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission
pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high
consequence areas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in §
192.903 to identify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to
its entire pipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual



portions of the pipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity
management program which method it is applying to each portion of the operator's
pipeline system. The description must include the potential impact radius when
utilized to establish a high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for guidance on
identifying high consequence areas.)
• Item 1A : §192.947(d)
There was no documentation available to verify that a system map was used to
determine HCAs as required in their HCA Process. [A.01.d]
Evidence: QET did not have any documentation to show that a system map was
available to identify the BP facility and verify that the facility is located outside of an
HCA per class location study as specified in their operations and maintenance (O&M)
procedures.
2. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission pipeline
system are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high consequence
areas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in § 192.903 to
identify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to its entire
pipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual portions of the
pipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity management program
which method it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipeline system. The
description must include the potential impact radius when utilized to establish a
high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for guidance on identifying high
consequence areas.)
(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of
this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation
and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency
response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of
locations that meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include
officials on a local emergency planning commission or relevant Native American
tribal officials.
(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning
responsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to identify
an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as
appropriate, to identify these sites.
(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or
(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government
agency; or
(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map maintained
by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency and available to
the general public.
2



(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the area
around a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high consequence area
could satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the operator must complete the
evaluation using method (1) or (2). If the segment is determined to meet the
definition as a high consequence area, it must be incorporated into the operator's
baseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year from the date
the area is identified.
• Item 2A: §192.905(c)
QET did not contact public officials, as required by the Integrity Management Rule, in
order to determine identified sites for HCA determination by the December 17, 2004
deadline. [A.03.b]
Evidence: QET could not produce any documentation that public officials were
contacted prior to December 17, 2004 in order to locate identified sites as required.
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty
assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this
letter. Failure to do so will result in Questar Energy Trading being subject to additional
enforcement action.
No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to
CPF 5-2007-0024W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement
action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your
responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the
complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions
you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe
the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 J. Gilliam (#120027)
3
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 7231