BRIDGER PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF520095034_Operator Response and Request for Hearing_10292009.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF520095034_operator response_12222009.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF520095034_Petition For Review of Final Agency Action_02152013.pdf#

520095034_Closure Letter_02052014_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED February 5, 2014 Mr. Tad True Vice President Bridger Pipeline, LLC 455 N. Poplar Street P.O. Drawer 2360 Casper, WY 82601 RE: CPF 5-2009-5034 Termination of Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement) Dear Mr. True: On January 17, 2014, PHMSA received a letter responding to my letter of January 6, 2014, where-in I detailed additional alleged deficiencies in your procedures based on my staff’s review of the records you had submitted. In your most recent letter, you detail how your supervisory staff engages your operations and maintenance (O & M) personnel on a daily basis. You also point to the fact that you do have records of modifications you have made to your O & M manuals and procedures. I agree that your overall program for periodically reviewing the work done by operator to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found have been modified appropriately and appear to provide adequate direction to supervisory personnel to carry out this directive per the requirements in 195.402(c)(13). Item 20 in “Section X. Termination.” Agreement, states: “20. With the exception of Sections 9 and 10 of this Agreement, which shall survive termination, the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement shall terminate upon: (a) Bridger’s payment of the civil penalty set forth in Paragraph 11; and, (b) Bridger’s satisfactory completion of the compliance terms set forth in Paragraph 15, pursuant to the submittal and review procedures set forth therein. Nothing in this#

520095034_Closure Letter_02052014_text.pdf, page 2Agreement precludes Bridger or PHMSA from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.” I have confirmed the receipt of the civil penalty in this case in the amount of $45,000, on November 15, 2014. Therefore, I have determined that Bridger has satisfactory completed the terms set forth in Paragraph 12 (receipt of civil penalty specified in Paragraph 11) and 15, of the agreement and that this agreement is terminated. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (720) 963-3160. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Chris Hoidal Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 P. Katchmar/H. Nguyen Bridger Pipeline, LLC - K. Dockweiler by e-mail#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDECEMBER 31, 2012 Mr. H.A. ‘Hank’ True President, True Companies Bridger Pipeline, LLC 455 N. Poplar P. O. Drawer 2360 Casper, WY 82602 Re: CPF No. 5-2009-5034 Dear Mr. True: Enclosed is my Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Bridger Pipeline, LLC, in the above-referenced case. The Decision grants, in part, and denies, in part, Bridger’s Petition for Reconsideration. The remaining terms of the Final Order are in effect, including the assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of $63,800. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of the Decision by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure: cc: Mr. Tad True, Vice President - True Companies, Bridger Pipeline, LLC - 455 N. Poplar P. O. Drawer 2360, Casper, WY 82602 Mr. Colin G. Harris, Holme Bryan Cave, formerly Roberts & Owens, LLP, Counsel for Bridger Pipeline, LLC, 1801 13th Street, Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, OPS Western Region Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS VIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ______________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Bridger Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2009-5034 ) Respondent. ) ______________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 30, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Final Order in this proceeding, finding that Bridger Pipeline, LLC (Bridger or Petitioner), had committed six violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 195. The Final Order assessed a reduced civil penalty of $63,800 for various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. On September 24, 2012, Bridger submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order, contesting the findings and requesting a review of Items 2-7 of the Final Order and the associated civil penalties. First, the company argued that PHMSA erred in finding that it violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 (Item 2); 49 C.F.R. § 195.302 (Item 3); 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 4); 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 5); 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) (Item 6); and 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) (Item 7). Second, Bridger argued that PHMSA relied on hearsay statements in the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) to make findings of violation. Third, Bridger argued that the civil penalties assessed for Items 4 and 7 of the Final Order should be recalculated. Standard of Review A respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order. Reconsideration is not a right to appeal or seek a de novo review of the record.1 It is an opportunity to present the Associate Administrator with previously unavailable information or to request that any errors in the Final Order be corrected. Requests for consideration of new facts or arguments must be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered.2 1 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a)-(e). 2 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(c).#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 32 For the reasons set forth below, I am denying Bridger’s request for reconsideration of the finding that it violated the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 5), 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) (Item 6), and 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) (Item 7). I affirm the findings of violation in the Final Order, compliance order and the assessed civil penalty of $63,800. However, I am withdrawing the findings that Bridger violated the requirements of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.202 (Item 2) and 195.302(a) (Item3). The associated compliance items for Item 2 are also withdrawn. Analysis Item 2: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states: § 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards. Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. The Final Order determined that Bridger failed to demonstrate that the above-ground piping installed for breakout tanks at its Poplar station, in either 2007 or early 2008, had been constructed in accordance with the comprehensive written specifications or standards required by 49 C.F.R. Part 195. I found that Bridger’s station piping is not ancillary to the system and that the piping is capable of experiencing or being affected by the internal operating pressure of the pipeline system.3 In its Petition, Bridger argued that Item 2 should be reversed because the regulation in effect at the time of the alleged violation excepted from Part 195 requirements certain low stress pipelines and pipeline segments. According to Bridger, the Poplar Station pipeline met the criteria of the exception: the segment did not transport hazardous volatile liquids (HVL), was neither located in a non rural area nor in a waterway segment, and operated at 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) or below. Further, Bridger contended that PHMSA did not meet its burden of proof that the segment operated in excess of 20 percent SMYS and erred by relying on a February 2, 2006 accident report. To clarify, it is the version of the regulation that is in effect at the time of the inspection that is applicable. The inspection was conducted on June 15 to 20, 2008. The final rule that brought low stress pipeline under regulation was issued on June 3, 2008. However, the final rule did not go into effect until July 3, 2008, after the inspection. Before July 3, 2008, certain pipelines operating at low-stress were except from 49 C.F.R. Part 195. The limited exception applied to a low-stress onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that did not transport HVL; is located in a rural area; and is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial navigation. Thus, the question is whether, at the time of the inspection, this limited exception applied to the above-ground piping installed for breakout tanks at Bridger’s Poplar station. The breakout tank piping at the Poplar Station is part of the Poplar Pipeline System, as hazardous liquid moves through the line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to the line pipe and breakout 3 Final Order at 3 and 5#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 43 tank. It is undisputed that the piping at the Poplar Pipeline station is an onshore pipeline segment that does not transport HVL; is located in a rural area; and is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial navigation. However, to fall under the exception, the piping has to be operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the SMYS of the line pipe.4 The finding in the Final Order was based in part on the February 2, 2006 accident report as evidence that a component on a pipeline segment at the Poplar Station failed while operating in excess of 20 percent of SMYS.5 In its Petition, Bridger argued that the accident report does not involve an incident at the Poplar Station; it involved an incident at the Baker, Montana pipeline station, as indicated in the answers to questions 2-3 on page 1 of the accident report.6 However, the accident report states on page 2, Part C-Origin of the Accident, Line 1a the “Line segment name or ID Poplar Station”. Line 4 states that the “Failure occurred on Component”. On page 4, Part I—Narrative Description of Factors Contributing to the Event, “A steel bar in a barred tee of the Poplar pipeline prover broke off, allowing the prover ball to partially block the flow out of the prover. Wichita controllers picked up high pressure alarms on Poplar pipeline…” Bridger’s accident report indicated that the accident occurred when a component failed on a pipeline segment at the Poplar Station. Given the conflicting information about the location of the accident, I have reconsidered the accident report that led to the finding that Petitioner’s Poplar line operated in excess of 20 percent of SMYS. Although the accident report recorded the estimated pressure at the time of the accident, the report omitted the specifications necessary to determine the internal design pressure of the pipeline. The internal design pressure helps determine the SMYS level of the pipe at the time of the accident. Under 49 C.F.R. § 195.106, the internal design pressure of a pipe is calculated by inputting certain specific criteria into a predetermined formula. Without the specific criteria to put into the formula, the stress level of the pipe cannot be determined. After considering all of the evidence, I find that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the pipe referenced in the accident report operated in excess of 20 percent SMYS at the time of the accident; or that the piping at the Poplar Station was exempt from Part 195 at the time of the inspection as a low-stress pipeline. Therefore, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation. Nothing in this finding prevents PHMSA, in future enforcement actions, from alleging a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.202. Item 3: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a), which states: § 195.302 General requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in § 195.305(b), no operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under 4 49 C.F.R. §195.2 defines a low stress pipeline as a hazardous liquid pipeline that is operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20% or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe. 5 Final Order at 4. 6 Petition at 3.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 54 this subpart without leakage. In addition, no operator may return to service a segment of pipeline that has been replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. The Final Order determined that Bridger subsequently submitted a satisfactory pressure test dated June 15, 2010, to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a) and there were no compliance terms for Item 3 included in the Final Order. Petitioner repeated its argument that the breakout tank piping is a low stress line and not subject to system pressure and, therefore, is exempt from 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Because I have withdrawn Item 2 above, Item 3 is also withdrawn. Item 4: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. The Final Order determined that Bridger failed to review its Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual at the required intervals, exceeding the maximum allowed interval by approximately 26 months. As stated in the Order, there was insufficient evidence that Bridger had reviewed the manual from February 2005 until June 2007. Bridger’s manual was prepared in February 2005, which means that the first review would have been due no later than May 2006. Bridger had not demonstrated that it performed the May 2006 review. In its Petition, Bridger argued that PHMSA erred in finding that it violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), when the agency relied on hearsay statements in the Violation Report and an interview of Mr. Darin Schiller by the PHMSA inspector, and ignored testimony by Mr. Gary Quinn, an affiant and witness at the hearing. First, with regard to Bridger’s hearsay contention, PHMSA’s informal hearings may consider hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible in federal courts. The hearings are conducted informally without strict adherence to rules of evidence, 49 C.F.R. § 190.211(d). There is no denial of due process when hearings are not conducted under the rules of evidence. In this case, hearsay evidence did not deprive Bridger of its right to a fair hearing. Bridger had an opportunity to be heard, cross-examine witnesses, and to submit relevant information and material. The hearing officer may accept all, none, or part of any person’s testimony, and credibility is always a consideration.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 65 With regard to PHMSA’s violation reports, these are kept in the regular course of business to record observations, activities, events, conditions, and interviews during an inspection, as shown by the testimony of the PHMSA inspector. During the inspection, Bridger was unable to provide documentation to demonstrate compliance. In making a finding, I weighed evidence and credibility, including the statements of Mr. Schiller in the Violation Report, and the testimony of Mr. Quinn and PHMSA’s inspector. Mr. Schiller and Mr. Quinn had worked for Bridger for years and made statements of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered. The determining factor was the lack of documentation. Without documentation to demonstrate compliance, I found insufficient evidence that Bridger had performed a review of its O&M manual from February 2005 until June 2007. Petitioner has not presented any new evidence to contradict that finding. I find no basis to alter the finding of the Final Order. Item 5: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) …. (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations: (1) …. (13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Final Order determined that Bridger failed to demonstrate that it reviewed the work performed by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of its procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, within the intervals required by its Normal Operating Procedures 3.8.7 In its Petition, Bridger argued that the finding made in Item 5 of the Final Order should be reversed. Petitioner contended that it was cited for failing to have an O&M manual containing procedures for reviewing deficiency reviews and abnormal events, but the Final Order found Bridger violated the regulation by failing to follow its procedures. Contrary to the Petitioner’s contention, the Notice alleged that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to demonstrate that it had periodically reviewed personnel performances to determine the effectiveness of normal O&M procedures and had taken corrective action where deficiencies were found, as required by the company’s Normal Operating Procedures, Section 3.8. Specifically, Bridger had not demonstrated that it had performed the required annual review of work done by its personnel in accordance with its 7 Violation Report, Exhibit B at 20.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 76 procedures. In Item 5 of the Final Order, I found that to comply with the regulation Bridger must be able to demonstrate that reviews, as required by its procedures, had been performed. 8 The Final Order determined that there was insufficient evidence to show Bridger had actually reviewed the work performed by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of its procedures used in normal O&M, within the intervals required by its Normal Operating Procedures 3.8. Having reviewed the evidence provided in the Notice of Probable Violation, Violation Report, Response and Petition, I find that PHMSA met its burden of proof in sustaining the finding of violation. Bridger’s petition for Item 5 is denied. Bridger must therefore complete the actions specified in the Compliance Order. Item 6: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance. (a) …. (d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded: (1) …. (5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Final Order determined that Bridger failed to demonstrate it had performed reviews of the work performed by its personnel and contractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures.9 In its Petition, Petitioner repeated the argument made in Item 5 above that there was no violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.402 because Bridger’s O&M Manual contained the required review procedures. The Final Order determined that there was insufficient evidence to show Bridger had actually reviewed the work performed by its personnel and contractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures.10 I find no basis to conclude that Bridger performed reviews of the work performed by its personnel and contractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures. Having reviewed the evidence provided in the Notice of Probable Violation, Violation Report, Response and Petition, I find that PHMSA met its burden of proof in sustaining the finding of violation. Bridger’s petition for Item 6 is denied. Bridger must therefore complete the actions specified in the Compliance Order. 8 See In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2009-5034, (Aug. 30, 2012) at 8. (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement). 9 Final Order at 10. 10 Final Order at 10.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 87 Item 7: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9), which states in relevant part: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) …. (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs; . . . (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. In Item 7 of the Final Order, I found that Bridger failed to demonstrate that it performed post- accident reviews no later than 45 days after the four accidental hazardous liquid releases on its Poplar pipeline were no longer considered emergencies, as required by the company’s O&M Manual. In its Petition, Bridger argued that Item 7 should be reversed for the same reason as Items 5-6 above because Bridger’s O&M Manual contains the review procedures. Bridger contended that the evidence was ignored, or there was confusion because Bridger filled out one Incident Response Review form in preparation for the hearing.11 Bridger also contended that it “openly and directly advised PHMSA and the hearing officer at the hearing that this was not a contemporaneous record”, but was “based on was based on contemporaneous diary entries of the person responsible for responding to the event.”12 As stated in the Order, at the hearing, PHMSA testified that Bridger did not provide any documentation to the OPS inspector to demonstrate compliance during the inspection. PHMSA also testified that Bridger created at least one of its incident response review forms years after the fact using handwritten notes from a former employee, and the handwritten notes used as the basis for that re-creation did not include all of the information required for an adequate post-accident review. The agency also asserted that the evidence showed that at least one of the required post- accident reviews of employee activities did not occur. 13 During the hearing, Bridger presented a record for the purpose of demonstrating compliance years after the accident. Bridger was warned that the handwritten notes of a former employee could be submitted but not post-accident review records created for the purpose of the hearing. In fact, during a side bar, the hearing officer questioned and advised Bridger of the potential implications of knowingly creating a record from a diary, years after the accident, for the purpose of the hearing, and after receipt of the Notice to demonstrate compliance. The 11 Petition at 5. 12 Id. 13 Final Order at 11.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 98 requirement to create and maintain post-accident review records means the record must be created contemporaneously with the required activity. Creating a record years after an accident does not meet the regulatory requirement to maintain complete post-accident records. In making a finding, I weighed evidence and credibility. After considering Bridger’s Petition, I find no reason to alter the finding in the Final Order. Civil Penalty Petitioner argued that the civil penalties assessed for Items 4 and 7 of the Final Order should be recalculated. Specifically, Petitioner argued that the $35,000 civil penalty assess for Item 4 should be dismissed because Bridger did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a); the civil penalty is based on an incorrect factual assumption about the status of Bridger employees and it is not supported by the evidence. Bridger also made an alternative argument that, even if there was a violation, the reduced civil penalty is miscalculated, the basis for the penalty is not in the Final Order, and the statutorily required mitigation factors were addressed in a generic way. Bridger contended that it was found to have “exceeded the maximum allowed interval by approximately 26 months”, based on a difference between February 2005 and June 2007. Bridger contended that it did not “exceed” the allowed interval by 26 months; the interval was exceeded at most by 11 months, and the penalty should at most be $14,800. First, Petitioner was found to have violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) in the Final Order. The finding of violation stands, as discussed above and in more detail in the Final Order. Furthermore, the civil penalty for this violation was reduced to $28,800 in the Final Order. Second, I found in the Final Order that the foundation of the penalty amount was based on the gravity of the violation and the circumstances surrounding the violation, including the number of reviews that Bridger failed to perform and exceeding the maximum interval for review. In particular, I found the nature and circumstances of Petitioner’s failure to review its O&M manual beyond the regulatory deadline justified the assessment of the full proposed penalty amount. On the other hand, I found Bridger had performed reviews of its O&M Manual on June 12, 2007 and June 11, 2008, which factored into my decision to reduce the civil penalty. After considering Bridger’s Petition, I find no reason to further reduce the civil penalty. Bridger must therefore pay the reduced civil penalty of $28,800. With regard to Item 7, Petitioner argued that the $35,000 civil penalty assessed for this item should be reduced by three-quarters because it proved “that three of the four reviews occurred at or near the time of the incidents and that Mr. Quinn prepared near-contemporaneous Incident Review Forms.”14 14 Petition at 7.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 109 As discussed above and in the Final Order, Bridger did not provide any documentation to the OPS inspector to demonstrate compliance during the inspection. In making a finding, I weighed evidence and credibility. Bridger created at least one of its incident response review forms years after the accident, for the purpose of the hearing, and after receipt of the Notice to demonstrate compliance. Thus, I found no basis to reduce the civil penalty. Petitioner expressed concern with the statement in the Final Order that “[i]n general, Bridger has a poor compliance history.”15 Bridger maintained that two of the Final Orders cited in the Final Order involve Bridger Lake, LLC, a company not affiliated with Bridger. Further, one Bridger case, CPF No. 5-2007-5003, was double counted by including both the Final Order and the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration. There is a footnote containing a typographical error that includes a Bridger Lake Corrective Action Order and Consent Agreement. PHMSA will provide Bridger with a copy of the Final Order with the revised footnote. Notwithstanding the revision, Bridger’s history demonstrates that it cognizant of the regulations, culpable for the violations, and that the company’s history of prior offenses supported the penalty.16 Bridger operated the subject pipeline during the time in question, and therefore was responsible for compliance with the applicable pipeline safety regulations. This fact is well-supported in the record. After considering Bridger’s Petition, I find no reason to reduce the assessed $35,000 civil penalty for Item 7. Conclusion Based on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 109.215(c), I grant, in part, and deny, in part, Bridger’s Petition. Notwithstanding such finding, I have considered all the information and arguments submitted by Petitioner and find no basis to reconsider or alter the $63,800 civil penalty and associated compliance items. Payment of the $63,800 civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is now due. The payment instructions were set forth in detail in the Final Order. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: 15 Petition at 7. 16 Belle Fourche Pipeline Company, Bridger Pipeline Company, LLC (Bridger), and Butte Pipeline Company share the same manual of operating procedures and some of the same employees and officers. See In the Matter of Butte Pipeline Company, CPF No. 5-2007-5008, Final Order (Aug. 17, 2009). See also, In the Matter of Belle Fourche Pipeline Company, CPF No. 5-2007-5002, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration ( A single hearing was held and the companies jointly submitted a single Post-Hearing Submittal.) PHMSA also correctly recorded Bridger’s enforcement history: See also, In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated January 9, 2007, CPF No. 5-2005-5017; In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated February 16, 2006, CPF No. 3-2005-5036; In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated April 2, 2009, CPF No. 5-2007-5003; and In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, dated June 16, 2009, CPF No. 5-2007-5003.#

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf, page 1110 Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $63,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. This Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding. ___________________________________ ____________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED September 1, 2009 Mr. Tad True Vice President True Oil Bridger Pipeline, LLC 895 W. River Cross Road P.O. Drawer 2360 Casper, WY 82602 CPF 5-2009-5034 Dear Mr. True: On June 15 to June 20, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your Poplar pipeline in eastern Montana. As a result of the inspection, it appears that 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. §195.54 Accident reports. (a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported under §195.50 shall as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days after discovery of the accident, prepare and file an accident report on DOT Form 7000- 1, or a facsimile. (b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information reported or additions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall file a supplemental report within 30 days.#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 2Bridger Pipeline (BPL) failed to provide all the information required by DOT Form 7000-1 for a spill that occurred on April 23, 2008. DOT Form 7000-1 for accident report 20080161 – 7153 reported the information regarding this spill on May 13, 2008. The report was designated as a “final” report yet the form is missing a lot of key accident information. 2. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards. Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. BPL did not document that the recent construction of regulated piping between the Poplar pipeline and the Poplar station breakout tanks were conducted in accordance with written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 195. BPL installed above ground piping for their breakout tanks (BOTs) at their Poplar station in either 2007 or early 2008, but they were unable to locate the inspection, welding, or material certifications for this project. 3. §195.302 General requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in §195.305(b) , no operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. In addition, no operator may return to service a segment of pipeline that has been replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. BPL failed to perform a pressure test on the Poplar station BOT piping installed in 2007 or early 2008. BPL has no records or knowledge of a pressure test ever being conducted for the Poplar station BOT piping installed during this period. 4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. BPL did not review at the required frequency their manuals of written procedures for normal operation and maintenance, handling abnormal operations, and responding to emergencies. It 2#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 3appears that no procedural manual reviews were completed from February 2005 until June 2008. This interval between reviews exceeded the maximum allowed interval by 25 months. Further, interviews with BPL personnel as well as revision dates shown at the bottom of the pages for the BPL manuals reflect that there has not been a review of BPL procedures since 2005. 5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations: (13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. BPL failed to periodically review the work done by their personnel and contractors in order to determine the effectiveness of procedures used in normal operation and maintenance. BPL Normal Operating Procedures Section 3.8 requires that BPL perform annual reviews of personnel performance to determine the effectiveness of normal operation and maintenance procedures. BPL could not provide any records showing that the required annual reviews were completed. 6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded; (5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. BPL failed to periodically review the procedures used by their personnel and contractors to control abnormal operation and take corrective action where deficiencies are found. BPL Abnormal Operating Procedures Section 6.3 requires a review of personnel responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures. BPL could not provide records showing there has been periodic review of personnel response to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures. Interviews indicate that this has been done informally but there have not been any records kept of these reviews. 3#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 47. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs; (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. BPL did not perform post accident reviews of their employees’ response activities after four (4) accidental releases of hazardous liquid from their Poplar pipeline reported to PHMSA between February 2, 2006 and November 17, 2006. BPL procedures require that post accident reviews be conducted 45 days after an accident is no longer considered an emergency. BPL, however, did not complete any such reviews of the four accidental releases of hazardous liquid noted above. 8. §195.420 Valve maintenance. (b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly. BPL was unable to provide documentation that their Glendive station valves had been inspected in the second half of 2006. To date, BPL has not been able to provide inspection records for seven (7) Glendive station valves that were to be inspected in the latter half of 2006. BPL personnel state that they did complete these inspections but the electronic records had been lost during computer upgrades. 9. §195.432 Breakout tanks. (b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). Bridger Pipeline, LLC (BPL) did not complete an “out of service” inspection of Tank 403 at the Poplar station after they learned there may be significant corrosion inside this tank. BPL has knowledge that Tank 403 previously stored fluids with high levels of bacteria that potentially can cause corrosion. It appears that storage of these liquids may have been for a substantial period of time and without the use of corrosion inhibitors. API Standard 653 Section 6.2.1 states several factors must be considered when determining inspection intervals for storage tanks including the nature of the product stored. Additionally API Standard 653 Section 6.2.2 states, “The interval between inspections of a tank (both internal and external) should be determined by its service history unless special reasons indicate that an earlier 4#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 5inspection must be made.” Knowledge that this tank was exposed to a highly corrosive environment should be considered a special reason for conducting an “out-of-service”, internal inspection per API 653. 10. §195.440 Public awareness (c) Maintenance and normal operations. (i) The operator's program documentation and evaluation results must be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies. BPL did not implement their public awareness program. BPL did not develop lists of emergency and public organization contact personnel within the vicinity or along their pipeline’s route. BPL’s Public Awareness Program Supplement A requires that a list of emergency and public organizations be developed for those organizations that are along the route of the pipeline. This list must include those organization’s contact personnel with emergency and business phone numbers and addresses. At the time of inspection, BPL had not yet developed these lists for the Poplar pipeline. Proposed Civil Penalty 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. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $70,000 as follows: Item number PENALTY 4 $35,000 7 $35,000 Warning Items With respect to items 1 and 8, 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 promptly correct these items. Be advised that failure to do so may result in Bridger Pipeline, LLC (BPL) being subject to additional enforcement action. Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to BPL. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. 5#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 6Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. 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). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2009-5034 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Chris Hoidal Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 G. Davis (#120774) 6#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 7PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Bridger Pipeline, LLC (BPL) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of BPL with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to not having inspection or materials documentation showing that the Poplar Station breakout tank (BOT) piping was constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 195, BPL must either: 1) provide documentation verifying that the BOT piping was constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this 49 CFR Part 195, or 2) they must re-construct this piping and document that the piping is constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this 49 CFR Part 195. 2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to not pressure testing BOT piping at the Poplar station, BPL must perform and document a pressure test of the BOT piping in accordance with 49 CFR Part 195 Subpart E. 3. In regard to Item 4 of the Notice pertaining to BPL failure to review their manuals of written procedures for normal operation and maintenance, for handling abnormal operations, and for responding to emergencies since February 2005 until the time of this inspection. BPL must review all of their manuals of written procedures for normal operation and maintenance, for handling abnormal operations, and for responding to emergencies and make changes to those procedures that are not effective. BPL must also ensure that records are kept of these reviews as required by Part 195. 4. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to BPL’s failure to periodically review the work done by their personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found, BPL must immediately review the work done by their personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of their operation and maintenance procedures. If deficiencies are found BPL must take corrective action. BPL must document all such reviews and corrective actions taken. 5. In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to BPL’s failure to periodically review the response by their personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found, BPL must immediately review 7#

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf, page 8the response to emergencies by their personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of their emergency response procedures. If deficiencies are found BPL must take corrective action. BPL must document all such reviews and corrective actions taken. 6. In regard to Item Number 9 of the Notice pertaining to not completing an “out of service” inspection of Tank 403 at the Poplar station, BPL must complete an “out of service” inspection in accordance with API Standard 653. 7. In regard to Item Number 10 of the Notice pertaining to not developing a list of fire, police and other public officials for the purpose of contacting for liaison activities as required by BPL procedures, BPL must develop a list of all local fire, police and other public officials for the purpose of liaison along their Poplar pipeline. 8. BPL shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 8#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAUGUST 30, 2012 Mr. H.A. ‘Hank’ True President True Companies Bridger Pipeline, LLC 455 N. Poplar P. O. Drawer 2360 Casper, WY 82602 Re: CPF No. 5-2009-5034 Dear Mr. True: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, withdraws allegations of violation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $63,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Bridger Pipeline, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Tad True, Vice President - True Companies, Bridger Pipeline, LLC - 455 N. Poplar P. O. Drawer 2360, Casper, WY 82602 Mr. Colin G. Harris, Holme Bryan Cave, formerly Roberts & Owens, LLP, Counsel for Bridger Pipeline, LLC, 1801 13th Street, Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, OPS Western Region Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Bridger Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2009-5034 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From June 15 to June 20, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Bridger Pipeline, LLC’s (Bridger or Respondent) Poplar pipeline in eastern Montana. Bridger, part of the True Companies, operates crude oil transmission pipelines in Montana and North Dakota.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 1, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Bridger had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $70,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible enforcement action. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 29, 2009 (Response). Bridger contested all of the allegations, the proposed civil penalty, and the proposed compliance order and requested a hearing. Respondent provided additional written material by letter dated May 6, 2010 (Supplemental Response). A hearing was subsequently held on May 18, 2010 in Denver, Colorado, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. At the opening of the hearing, OPS moved to withdraw Items 1 and 8 of the Notice, warning items. Both parties then presented evidence and arguments on the remaining allegations of violation. At the conclusion of the hearing, Bridger was given a reasonable time to submit a post-hearing brief. Bridger later requested and was granted an extension of time. Bridger submitted its post-hearing materials by letter with attachments dated July 7, 2010(Closing). 1 http://www.truecos.com/bridger/ (last accessed March 13, 2012).#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 32 Respondent provided additional written material and a post-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated August 10, 2010. (Supplemental Closing) FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states: § 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards. Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by failing to document that piping at its Poplar station had been constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger failed to provide inspection, welding, or material certifications to demonstrate that its above-ground piping installed for breakout tanks at its Poplar station, in either 2007 or early 2008, was constructed in accordance with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. In its Responses and at the hearing, Bridger did not dispute that it failed to provide inspection, welding, or material certifications to demonstrate that the subject piping was constructed in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 but contended that the subject piping is exempt from 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Respondent raised three defenses to the allegation that it had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202. First, it argued that the requirements of Part 195 did not apply because the breakout tank piping is not subject to system pressure. Second, Bridger argued that the breakout tank piping is exempt from Part 195 because it is a low stress line that operates at less than 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). Third, Bridger argued that the piping was constructed in a manner consistent with Part 195 and that requiring the company to re-construct the subject piping to demonstrate compliance, as suggested in the Notice, is a drastic and unnecessary remedy.2 First, Respondent argued that the breakout tank piping is not subject to system pressure and, therefore, is exempt from 49 C.F.R. Part 195, Subpart C, citing to 49 C.F.R. § 195.128 that “[a]ny pipe to be installed in a station that is subject to system pressure must meet the applicable requirements of this subpart.” Bridger explained that the piping is not subject to system pressure because the back pressure valve holds constant pressure coming into the station, there is a difference in line sizes, the valves are pad locked open going in and the out pumps cannot generate more pressure than 84 psig. In support of its position, Bridger presented diagrams of 2 The company contended that it constructed the subject piping, which operates at a pressure of 70 psi, in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 43 the Poplar Station piping, pump curves, and SMYS Calculations.3 In response, PHMSA testified that its inspection revealed new piping at the Poplar Station consisting of a manifold and piping going from the pumps to the breakout tanks.4 PHMSA asserted that 49 C.F.R. Part 195 applies because the piping leads to tanks that receive and deliver crude oil from a regulated pipeline and that can receive surges from a regulated pipeline. PHMSA explained that the breakout tank piping is subject to system pressure; that the station piping was constructed while the pipeline was in operation; that back pressure valves keep the pipe packed and that any line that could see mainline pressure must meet standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. PHMSA testified that any relief device downstream providing relief to a greater than 20 percent SMYS line is a part of the construction because the operator can expose relief pressure to the same pressure on the main line. PHMSA explained that the breakout tank piping at the Poplar Station is part of the Poplar Pipeline System, as hazardous liquid moves through the line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to the line pipe and breakout tank. PHMSA reasoned that because the piping is located between a regulated transmission pipe and regulated breakout tanks, this piping is regulated under Part 195. PHMSA testified that the breakout tank piping at issue could be subject to system pressure during an overpressure event and pointed to Bridger’s schematics and drawings in support of its assessment.5 PHMSA asserted that, even if it is not subject to system pressure, requirements in Subparts D and E of Part 195 nonetheless applied to the breakout tank piping, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, because the breakout tank piping at the Poplar Station is part of a “pipeline system.” After considering the evidence, I find that the breakout tank piping at the Poplar Station is an appurtenance to the Poplar pipeline system.6 “Any pipe to be installed in a station that is subject to system pressure must meet the applicable requirements of this subpart”, 49 C.F.R. § 195.128. From a review of the Poplar Station piping diagram, it is evident that the relief piping to the breakout tanks is needed to relieve system pressure should an overpressure event occur. In accordance with § 195.128, I find that Bridger’s station piping is not ancillary to the system and that the piping is capable of experiencing or being affected by the internal operating pressure of the pipeline system. Therefore, I find that Bridger’s station piping must meet the applicable requirements of Part 195. Second, Bridger argued that the breakout tank piping is exempt from Part 195 because it is a low stress line that operates at less than 20 percent SMYS. Bridger argued that since the enactment of the Part 195 regulations in the late 1960’s, the “scope” provision in section 195.1 has 3 Response at Exhibit 2. 4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, (September 17, 2009) (Violation Report) Attachment A at 19. 5 Response at Exhibit 2. 6 A pipeline or pipeline system is all parts of a pipeline facility through which a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide moves in transportation, including, but not limited to, line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to the line pipe, pumping units, fabricated assemblies associated with pumping units, metering and delivery stations and fabricated assemblies therein, and breakout tanks, as defined in 49 C.F.R. § 195.2.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 54 exempted “[t]ransportation through pipelines that operate at a stress level of 20 % or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe in the system.” 34 Fed. Reg. 15,473, 15,476 (Oct. 4, 1969). During the hearing, Bridger presented testimony that the pipe entering and at the Poplar Station segment had a maximum operating pressure (MOP) less than 20 percent SMYS.7 In response, PHMSA explained that if part of the line operated above 20 percent SMYS, then it is all above 20 percent SMYS and the line does not meet the definition of low-stress pipeline. PHMSA described and explained in detail how the February 2, 2006-accident report (accident report) Bridger submitted is evidence that a component on a pipeline segment at the Poplar Station failed while operating in excess of 20 percent of SMYS.8 A review of Bridger’s accident report showed that a failure occurred on a component of the line while operating above 20 percent SMYS. I find that the breakout tank piping at the Poplar Station is part of the Poplar Pipeline System, as hazardous liquid moves through the line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to the line pipe and breakout tank. I find that at least some parts of Bridger’s Poplar Pipeline System operated at a stress level in excess of 20 percent of SMYS. If part of the line is operated above 20 percent SMYS, then the line does not satisfy the low stress exception that it be operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the SMYS, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.2. Therefore, I further find that the piping at the Poplar station is subject to Part 195. Then, the company argued that the subject piping was constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. As support, Bridger referred to the company’s welding records and use of a reputable welding contractor to perform the construction.9 During the hearing and in a post- hearing affidavit, Bridger’s employee attested that “we used pipe already owned by Bridger because we had a lot of 16-inch diameter, 0.250-inch wall thickness, Grade X-52 pipe that had been used as a temporary by-pass line on a stoppling job south of New Castle. The pipe had been hydrotested before being put into service as the by-pass…[f]or the tank discharge lines, all of the pipe was new pipe left over from earlier projects and from memory I was certain the 10- inch and 12-inch (diameter pipe) were X-42 because that is what Texaco engineers (the prior owner of the Station) always used in this system and ranged from .219 to .250 wall.”10 Bridger proposed to resolve the matter by performing an x-ray examination of the welds and a pressure test at over four times the pressure required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.302, to validate the integrity of the assembly, for the service to which it is intended. In response, PHMSA argued that the documents Bridger submitted were mischaracterized as welding records and the documents do not support the Bridger employee’s affidavit and 7 Testimony and Closing, Affidavit of Kenneth Dockweiler, Attachment B; and Exhibits 2-4. 8 Violation Report, Exhibit E, at 23. 9 Closing, Attachment 5 and Exhibit 5. 10 Closing, Gary Quinn Affidavit, Attachment C.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 65 testimony that based on the seam type and date of manufacture the pipe used in the construction was of the quality required by Part 195.11 PHMSA described in detail components of the documents in Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and argued that the documents are contractor itemized costs for labor and equipment, with no evidence of weld procedures used, qualifications of weld procedures or welders, and no evidence of any inspection of the welding. After considering the evidence and testimony, I find that the evidence submitted by Respondent as “welding records” lacked sufficient information to show that the work that had been performed satisfied the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. I also find that Respondent submitted insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the above-ground piping installed for breakout tanks at its Poplar station, in either 2007 or early 2008, had been constructed in accordance with the requirements of Part 195. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that Bridger’s station piping is not exempt from Part 195. I also find that at the time of the inspection, Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by failing to demonstrate that the above-ground piping installed for breakout tanks at its Poplar station, in either 2007 or early 2008, had been constructed in accordance with the comprehensive written specifications or standards required by 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a), which states: § 195.302 General requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in § 195.305(b), no operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. In addition, no operator may return to service a segment of pipeline that has been replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been pressure tested under this subpart without leakage. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a) by operating a pipeline that had not been pressure tested without leakage, in accordance with Subpart E of Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger failed to perform a pressure test on its Poplar Station breakout tank piping that had been installed in 2007 or early 2008.12 In its Response and at the hearing, Bridger argued that although the piping was exempt from Part 195 and no pressure test was required, it would complete a pressure test of the Poplar Station breakout tank piping in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a). During the hearing, PHMSA asserted that the company was required to pressure test the breakout tank piping at the time of installation and that none of the exceptions from the requirements of Subpart E applied. PHMSA cited to 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a) which requires that “no operator 11 Closing, Gary Quinn Affidavit, Attachment C. 12 The agency asserted that Respondent had no records or knowledge of a pressure test ever being performed on its Poplar Station breakout tank piping in 2007 or early 2008.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 76 may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under this subpart without leakage”. After the hearing, Bridger submitted a hydrostatic pressure test report13 dated June 15, 2010, to demonstrate compliance.14 PHMSA agreed that the company’s June 15, 2010 hydrostatic pressure test records showed that the above-ground piping was tested in accordance with the requirements. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Bridger’s station piping was not exempt from Part 195. Although Bridger subsequently submitted a satisfactory pressure test dated June 15, 2010, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a) by failing to perform a pressure test without leakage on the breakout tank piping that had been replaced or otherwise changed at the Poplar Station in 2007 or early 2008. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to review its manual of written procedures for conducting operations, maintenance, and emergencies (O&M Manual) from February 2005 until June 2008, exceeding the maximum allowed interval by approximately 25 months. In its pre-hearing Response, Bridger contended that it had prepared and followed its manual of written procedures.15 Respondent stated that it would present the O&M Manual Review Logs and Revision Request Forms as evidence that its manuals had been reviewed on June 12, 2007, and June 11, 2008. 16 Bridger presented the testimony and post-hearing affidavit of Mr. Gary Quinn, Bridger’s former Poplar Station Manager, who attested that reviews had been performed timely for years and in 13 Supplemental Closing. 14 Id. 15 In its response to Items 4, 5, and 6, Bridger argues that it had procedures. There is no question that the company had procedures. However, the allegations involve Bridger’s failure to follow its procedures. 16 Response.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 87 accordance with §195.402.17 Respondent also contended that its Review Logs demonstrated that there were no violations during the years in question.18 During the hearing, PHMSA pointed out that Bridger acknowledged that it had reviewed its O&M Manual in June 2007 and June 2008, supporting the allegation that Bridger failed to review its O&M Manual for at least a 26-month period, i.e., from February 2005 until June 2007. PHMSA further asserted that it is questionable whether any of the reviews actually occurred because Bridger’s records were incomplete and the revision dates shown at the bottom pages of its O&M manual indicate the procedures had not been reviewed since 2005. PHMSA testified that at the time of the inspection, Mr. Darin Schiller, Bridger’s Pipeline Safety Compliance Coordinator, stated that “[t]o his knowledge [the company] ha[d] never reviewed their manuals since the manuals were released in February 2005.” 19 PHMSA referred to the Violation Report where it documented the statement during the inspection interview. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Bridger’s testimony and the revision dates in Bridger’s O&M indicate that Bridger had performed reviews of its O&M Manual on June 12, 2007 and June 11, 2008. However, I find there is insufficient evidence that Bridger had reviewed the manual from February 2005 until June 2007. Respondent’s manual was prepared in February 2005, which means that the first review would have been due no later than May 2006. Respondent has not demonstrated that it performed the May 2006 review. I also find that it is not clear that Bridger’s Revision Request Forms are directly related to the individuals or the facility referenced in Bridger’s Review Log. I further find conflicting testimony between Mr. Quinn, a former Bridger employee and Mr. Schiller, a Bridger employee at the time of the inspection. I find there is insufficient evidence that Bridger had performed a review of its O&M manual from February 2005 until June 2007. Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to review its O&M manual at the required intervals, exceeding the maximum allowed interval by approximately 26 months. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) …. (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations: (1) …. (13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to 17 “With the purchase by Bridger of the pipeline in December of 2003, record keeping practices changes and I may have been sending records to Casper, including the review records. In any event, I have no recollection that I stopped doing these reviews in 2005 or at any other time. To the contrary, my recollection is that I have always done them …”Closing, Gary Quinn Affidavit, Attachment C. 18 Supplemental Response, Operations and Maintenance Manual Review Logs, revision date 07/08 and Revision Request Forms, Exhibit 6 and 7. 19 Violation Report, at 6.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 98 determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to demonstrate that it had periodically reviewed personnel performances to determine the effectiveness of normal operation and maintenance procedures and had taken corrective action where deficiencies were found, as required by the company’s Normal Operating Procedures, Section 3.8.20 In its Response and at the hearing, Bridger argued that it had procedures requiring annual reviews and that it followed Normal Operating Procedures, Section 3.8, requiring the annual review of its personnel performance.21 Bridger referenced the affidavit of Mr. Quinn attesting that the reviews included the normal operation and maintenance work performed by field personnel, as well as the work performed in abnormal situations such as emergencies. Bridger testified that it had conducted the reviews in June 2007 and June 2008. Respondent then argued that the regulation does not require Bridger to provide records to demonstrate that the reviews were completed. During the hearing, PHMSA asserted that Bridger’s Normal Operating Procedures, Section 3.8, required annual reviews of personnel performances to determine the effectiveness of normal operation and maintenance procedures each calendar year, at intervals not to exceed 15 months. PHMSA testified that Bridger failed to provide records to demonstrate that it had performed the required reviews. PHMSA also testified that during an inspection interview it documented a statement by Mr. Schiller, Bridger’s Pipeline Safety DOT Compliance Coordinator, that “[h]e did not believe these reviews ha[d] ever been done”.22 Upon consideration of all of the evidence and testimony, I find that the regulation alleged to have been violated required the company to follow a manual that specifically must include procedures for periodically reviewing the work performed by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance. I find that the company’s manual included procedures implementing 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) requiring the annual review of work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance each calendar year, at intervals not to exceed 15 months. I further find that although 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) does not state that Respondent is required to produce records to show that it performed the periodic review, the regulation is a performance standard and Respondent must be able to demonstrate that reviews, as required by its procedures, had been performed. I find that there is insufficient evidence to show Respondent had actually performed the annual work performance reviews. One Bridger employee contradicted testimony by another employee, that the company had performed reviews. Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to demonstrate that it reviewed 20 Violation Report, Exhibit B at 20. 21 Supplemental Closing, Exhibit 9. 22 Violation Report, at 6.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 109 the work performed by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of its procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, within the intervals required by its Normal Operating Procedures 3.8. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance. (a) …. (d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded: (1) …. (5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) by failing to periodically review work done by operator personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of the company’s abnormal operation procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger failed to demonstrate that it had performed reviews of work performed by personnel and contractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures each calendar year, at intervals not to exceed 15 months, as required by the company’s Abnormal Operating Procedures, Section 6.3. In its Response and at the hearing, Bridger argued that the allegation of violation should be dismissed. Bridger argued that its O&M Manual had the procedures required by the regulation and that any obligation to follow the Abnormal Operating Procedures, Section 6.3, is triggered by 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a). Respondent contended that its Abnormal Operating Procedures required and it had timely reviewed personnel responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures. Respondent stated that it performed reviews in June 2007 and June 2008, relying upon the testimony of employee, Mr. Gary Quinn, that the reviews included the normal operation and maintenance work performed by field personnel, as well as the work performed for abnormal situations. In response, PHMSA explained that the company’s failure to perform the required reviews is the issue and following the procedures is necessary to perform the required reviews. PHMSA asserted that Respondent’s testimony that it performed reviews in June 2007 and June 2008 is an admission that it did not perform reviews each calendar year, at intervals not to exceed 15 months. PHMSA also argued that the company’s admission contradicts any argument that it performed reviews at any time between February 2005 and June 2007. PHMSA testified that during the inspection interview it documented the statement of Mr. Schiller that “[b]oth myself and Mike Johnson informally review responses to abnormal operations, but these reviews have not been documented.”23 23 Violation Report, at 10.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1110 Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Bridger had procedures to perform the annual review of work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in abnormal operation. However, I find that there is no verifiable evidence that Respondent actually conducted reviews of the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of its Abnormal Operating Procedures, Section 6.3, between February 2005 and June 2007. It is not clear that Bridger’s Revision Request Forms are directly related to the individuals or the facility referenced in Bridger’s Review Log. As for the testimony relied upon by Bridger, I find that there were inconsistences that raised questions about the reliability of the statements. Respondent must be able to demonstrate that periodic reviews had been performed. I find that there is insufficient evidence to show Respondent had actually performed timely periodic work performance reviews. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) by failing to demonstrate it has performed reviews of the work performed by its personnel and contractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures. Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9), which states in relevant part: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) …. (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs; . . . (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) by failing to demonstrate that it had provided for a post-accident review of employee activities after four hazardous liquid releases on its Poplar pipeline, between February 2, 2006 and November 17, 2006. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger failed to provide for a post-accident review no later than 45 days after an accident is no longer considered an emergency, as required by the company’s O&M Manual. In its Response and at the hearing, Bridger argued that its O&M Manual includes written procedures for performing post-accident reviews; therefore, a finding of violation is not warranted. Bridger also argued that it performed timely post-accident reviews in all four hazardous liquid releases. At the hearing, Bridger submitted handwritten memoranda prepared on Incident Response Review forms at the time of each incident documenting the procedures undertaken in response to each incident, including notification, containment, investigation of the cause, and corrective action. 24 The company relied upon the affidavit and testimony of Mr. Quinn about the completeness of these reviews. Bridger argued that these satisfy any requirement for post-accident review. 24 Bridger Hearing Exhibits 10-14.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1211 At the hearing, PHMSA testified that Bridger did not provide any documentation to the OPS inspector to demonstrate compliance during the inspection. PHMSA also testified that Respondent created at least one of its incident response review forms years after the fact using handwritten notes from a former employee, and the handwritten notes used as the basis for that re-creation did not include all of the information required for an adequate post-accident review. The agency also asserted that the evidence showed that at least one of the required post accident reviews of employee activities did not occur. PHMSA also clarified that the violation at issue is Respondent’s failure to perform the reviews, not its failure to have a written procedure. Respondent has not demonstrated that the reviews occurred. During the hearing, Bridger acknowledged that it entered information on a post-accident review form in preparation for the hearing, years after the accident, based on handwritten notes from a former employee. Creating a record years after an accident has occurred does not meet the regulatory requirement to maintain complete post-accident records. I do not find the testimony of Mr. Quinn substantiated that the post-accident reviews occurred. The testimony of Mr. Quinn, particularly relates to events that may (or may not) have occurred several years prior to the inspection. After considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) by failing to demonstrate that it performed post-accident reviews no later than 45 days after the four accidental hazardous liquid releases on its Poplar pipeline accident were no longer considered emergencies, as required by the company’s O&M Manual. Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states: § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (a) . . . . (b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3). The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to conduct an “out of service” inspection of the physical integrity of atmospheric and low-pressure steel above- ground breakout Tank 403 according to section 4 of API Standard 653 or according to its operations and maintenance manual, as required by § 195.402(c)(3). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger failed to complete an “out of service” inspection of Tank 403 at its Poplar station after learning there may be significant corrosion inside Tank 403. In its Response and at the hearing, Bridger disputed the allegation, argued that Tank 403 had been inspected at appropriate intervals in accordance with API Standard 653, “Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction.” Bridger also contended that it performed an out-of- service inspection on Tank 403 in August 2009, which confirmed that the tank was in good condition. Bridger explained that an early tank inspection was not necessary because Tank 403 had an internal coating making it more resistant to any exposure to corrosive environment. In support of its position, Bridger submitted documentation regarding the internal coating.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1312 PHMSA acknowledged that it issued the Notice without knowing that Tank 403 had a corrosion- resistant internal coating. PHMSA conceded that the August 2009 inspection demonstrates compliance. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 9 of the Notice be withdrawn. Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(i), which states in relevant part: § 195.440 Public awareness. (a) . . . . (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety . . . . (i) The operator’s program documentation and evaluation results must be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(i) by failing to follow the program recommendations of API RP 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to implement its public awareness program and failed to develop a list of emergency and public organization contact personnel within the vicinity or along its pipeline route. The Notice also alleged that at the time of the inspection Respondent had not developed lists of contact personnel with emergency and business phone numbers and addresses for its Poplar pipeline. In its Response and at the hearing, Bridger argued that the company’s participation in state pipeline associations satisfies the requirements of the regulation and API Recommended Practice 1162. Respondent contended the company has compiled an updated list of local public officials. PHMSA asserted that an operator’s participation in a state pipeline association does not constitute a sufficient public awareness program, and even if it did, Bridger has not introduced any evidence showing that it properly documented or evaluated its participation in such a program. During the hearing, Respondent submitted lists of contact personnel with emergency and business phone numbers and addresses for its Poplar pipeline. A review of Bridger’s submission shows that it is now consistent with the current regulation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that the documentation submitted by Bridger at the hearing and resubmitted in its post-hearing submission demonstrates compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(i). Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 10 of the Notice be withdrawn. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1413 ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $70,000 for the violations cited above. Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to review its O&M manual each calendar year, at intervals not to exceed 15 months, exceeding the required intervals. Bridger argued that the terms of the proposed civil penalty and compliance order were “unreasonable, unnecessary and unduly burdensome and punitive, or they do not allow sufficient time to implement”.25 Bridger further argued that the civil penalty should be eliminated based on the evidence of compliance that it planned to submit post-hearing. In support of its position, Respondent compared the present case to In the Matter of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, C.P.F. No. 5-2005-2008,26 where ExxonMobil was cited for the same violation, found to be out of compliance for more than 3 years and fined $5,000. Bridger proffered that although it had no previous citation of violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) and it was no more than 13 months out of compliance, the proposed civil penalty is punitive. I have considered the above-referenced assertions by Bridger and disagree with elimination of the proposed civil penalty, finding that the assessment of civil penalties takes into account all of the factors identified in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 and the application of those factors are fact specific to the individual case in question. When Respondent attempts to compare previously issued final orders, it is not privy to all of the various circumstances that may exist in a particular case and history of that operator, so any attempt to make a comparison based upon violation of a particular regulation and the amount of the penalty will produce an inaccurate and flawed result. I am unable to compare the ExxonMobil case cited by Bridger to demonstrate the excessiveness of the proposed civil penalty amount, as the case was later withdrawn by the Associate Administrator. Upon review of the record, I find that the foundation of the penalty amount is based on the gravity of the violation, the circumstances surrounding the violation, including the number of reviews that Respondent failed to perform, exceeding the maximum interval for review, and the prior history of the operator. Respondent’s alleged failure to review its O&M manual from February 2005 until June 2008 was factored into the civil penalty amount. As stated above, I have found that Bridger had performed reviews of its O&M Manual on June 12, 2007 and 25 Response at 1. 26 See http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/CaseDetail_cpf_520055008 html?nocache=6563.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1514 June 11, 2008. Therefore, the civil penalty amount is reduced to reflect that Bridger failed to review its O&M Manual from February 2005 until June 2007. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $28,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a). Item 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9), for failing to demonstrate that it had provided for a post-accident review of employee activities to determine whether the company’s procedures were effective in each emergency, and had taken corrective action where deficiencies were found. Bridger argued that the civil penalty should be eliminated based on the evidence of compliance and because it has no previous citation for violation of this regulation. I have considered the arguments and assertions by Bridger. With respect to culpability, pipeline operators are well aware of their obligation to provide for post-accident review of employee activities. Bridger did not comply with its own O&M procedures to conduct post-accident reviews within 45 days after the accident is no longer an emergency. With respect to the gravity of the violation, it is essential that operators provide for post-accident reviews because a number of threats to a pipeline’s integrity can go undetected if post-accident reviews are not conducted in a timely fashion, such as the presence of improperly trained personnel, the existence of defective equipment, and the use of inadequate procedures. In general, Bridger has a poor compliance history.27 Applying lessons learned from accidents is an important part of preventing similar accidents from occurring in the future. The failure to document post-accident reviews reduces the chance that deficiencies will be identified and corrective action taken. Respondent has provided no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9). Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $63,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. 27 In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated January 9, 2007, CPF No. 5-2005-5017; In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated February 16, 2006, CPF No. 3-2005-5036; In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated April 2, 2009, CPF No. 5-2007-5003; In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, dated June 16, 2009, CPF No. 5-2007-5003.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1615 COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.54, 195.302(a), 195.402(a), and 195.402(e)(9), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Because I ordered that the allegation in Item 9 be withdrawn, and Respondent submitted a Hydrostatic Test Report for Items 2 and 3, and lists of contact personnel with emergency and business phone numbers and addresses was submitted for Item 10, the compliance terms proposed for Items 2, 3, 9 and 10 are not included in this order. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 4), Respondent must review its manuals of written procedures for normal operation and maintenance, for handling abnormal operations, and for responding to emergencies and make changes to those procedures that are not effective. Bridger must also maintain records of these reviews, as required by Part 195. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 5), Respondent must submit completed reviews of the work done by Bridger personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. 3. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(d)(5) (Item 6), Respondent must review the response to emergencies by their personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of their emergency response procedures and take corrective action if deficiencies are found. Bridger must document all such reviews and corrective action taken. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. WARNING ITEMS With respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. During that hearing, OPS moved to withdraw Warning Items 1 and 8 of the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Items 1 and 8 of the Notice be withdrawn.#

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1716 Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFUS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ) In the Matter of ) ) Bridger Pipeline, LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) ) CPF No. 5-2009-5034 CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER The U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and Bridger Pipeline, LLC (Bridger or Respondent), have engaged in settlement discussions regarding the resolution of the enforcement action listed above. Having concluded those discussions, PHMSA and Bridger (collectively, Parties) agree that a settlement of this matter is in the best interests of the Parties and the public and will avoid further administrative proceedings or litigation. The Parties further agree that the entry of this Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement) is the most appropriate means of accomplishing that objective. I. Procedural History. On September 1, 2009, PHMSA issued to Bridger a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). The Notice alleged that Bridger had committed eight violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing an administrative civil penalty of $70,000 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Bridger to complete certain corrective actions to address seven of the violations. On October 29, 2009, and May 6, 2010, Bridger submitted a written response to the Notice and requested an informal hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on May 18, 2010, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. On August 30, 2012, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, issued a Final Order in the case. The Final Order found that Bridger had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.202 (Item 2), 195.302(a) (Item 3), 195.402(a) (Item 4), 195.402(c)(13) (Item 5), 195.402(d)(5) (Item 6), and 195.402(e)(9) (Item 7), assessed a reduced civil penalty of $63,800, and ordered Bridger to complete certain corrective measures. 1#

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf, page 2On September 24, 2012, Bridger submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order, seeking reconsideration of the findings of violation for Items 2-7 and the civil penalties assessed for Items 4 and 7. On December 31, 2012, the Associate Administrator issued a Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration (Decision), withdrawing Items 2 and 3 but denying any further relief. On February 15, 2013, Bridger filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit challenging the Associate Administrator’s findings of violation for Items 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the Decision, in a case styled Bridger Pipeline, LLC v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Case No. 13-9517 (Petition). Under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties have now resolved the issues underlying the Notice and Petition, and Bridger will dismiss its Petition as provided in Paragraph 16 of this Agreement. II. General Provisions. 1. Bridger acknowledges that the company and its pipeline system, known generally as the Poplar Pipeline and located in eastern Montana, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Bridger acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U. S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. 2. Bridger agrees to the issuance of this Agreement and hereby waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Bridger waives all rights to contest the adequacy of the Notice, Final Order, and Decision issued in this proceeding and the validity of this Agreement, including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals. 3. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to this proceeding and the issues embodied in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or understandings relating to the amount or collection of any civil penalties other than those expressly contained in this Agreement. 4. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Bridger of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering, or its authority to bring any enforcement action against Bridger pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law. 5. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, state, or local laws or regulations that are applicable to Bridger’s pipeline system. This Agreement is not a permit or a modification of a permit under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Bridger remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits. 6. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any person not a party to this Agreement. PHMSA is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property 2#

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf, page 3arising from acts or omissions of Bridger or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. PHMSA, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives are not liable for any cause of action arising from any acts or omissions of Bridger or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement. 7. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding on PHMSA and Bridger, its officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, including, but not limited to, subsequent purchasers. III. Findings of Fact and Violations. 8. By entry of this Agreement, PHMSA vacates and withdraws the Final Order and Decision previously issued in this proceeding. 9. Respondent acknowledges that even though the Final Order and Decision are hereby withdrawn, Items 4, 5, 6, and portions of Item 7 from the Notice may be considered by PHMSA to be prior offenses in any future PHMSA enforcement action brought by the agency against Bridger. Except as provided under Paragraph 10 below, this Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or regulation and, therefore, may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or in future PHMSA enforcement actions against Bridger 10. Respondent acknowledges, and PHMSA hereby finds, that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) (Item 7), as alleged in the Notice, by failing to demonstrate that it had provided for a post-accident review of its employee activities no later than 45 days after the accidental hazardous liquid release that occurred on its Poplar pipeline on January 5, 2006, and was no longer an emergency, as required by its manual of written procedures for conducting operations, maintenance and emergencies. IV. Civil Penalty. 11. The Parties mutually agree, and PHMSA hereby orders, that the total civil penalty assessed in connection with the Notice is Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000.00). 12. Bridger will pay the civil penalty amount in Paragraph 11 within 30 calendar days of signing this Agreement. Payment shall be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. 13. The Parties agree that the civil penalty assessed and collected in this proceeding will not be deductible for purposes of Federal taxes. 14. The Parties agree that the civil penalty assessed and collected under this Section IV will not be used in determining the amount of any civil penalty for any future enforcement action against Bridger. 3#

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf, page 4V. Compliance Order. 15. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent agrees to take (or has taken) the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: A. B. C. D. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) alleged in Item 4 of the Notice, Bridger must: 1. Review its manual of written procedures for normal operation and maintenance, for handling abnormal operations, and for responding to emergencies and must make changes to those procedures that are not effective. 2. Maintain documentation in accordance with Part 195 for all procedure modifications and retraining of personnel. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(13) alleged in Item 5 of the Notice, Respondent must: 1. Revise its Normal Operating Procedures, Section 3.8, to require the periodic review of work done by Bridger personnel and unsupervised contractors to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and to require corrective action where deficiencies are found. Such procedures must provide for periodic written reviews that are separate and apart from Bridger’s annual employee performance reviews; 2. Such procedures must be submitted to the Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (Director) for review; and 3. Upon review of the revised procedures under subparagraph 1 above, Respondent must submit completed written reviews of the work performed by Bridger personnel and unsupervised contractors to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. Such reviews must comply with the procedures revised in accordance with this Paragraph 15(B). With respect to the violation of § 195.402(d)(5) alleged in Item 6 of the Notice, Respondent must submit completed written reviews it has performed for Bridger personnel and contractors to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in abnormal operations and for taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. Respondent must submit documentation that it has reviewed or revised its procedures pursuant to Paragraphs 15.A.1 and 15.B.1 above, within 90 calendar days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. 4#

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf, page 5E. Respondent must submit documentation that it has reviewed personnel performance pursuant to Paragraphs 15.B.3 and 15.C. above within 180 calendar days from the date its revised procedures have been reviewed and deemed to satisfy the terms of this order by the Director. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Upon receipt of the revised procedures required under Paragraphs 15.A and 15.B above, the Director will promptly respond in writing and indicate the expected completion date for his review. With respect to the procedures required to be submitted for review under Paragraphs 15.A.1 and 15.B.1 above, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the procedures; (b) approve the procedures on specified conditions; or (c) disapprove the procedures, specifying the basis for disapproval. Bridger may seek review by the Associate Administrator if Bridger disagrees with the Director regarding any Director decision on a submission, and the decision by the Associate Administrator shall constitute final agency action. VI. Dismissal of Petition for Review. 16. Within three (3) business days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties shall file a Stipulation to Dismiss the petition pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifying that the Parties will bear their costs on appeal. VII. Enforcement. 17. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U. S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including the assessment of civil penalties as determined in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.223 to 190.225, if PHMSA determines that Bridger is not complying with the terms of this Agreement or any determination made by the Director under Paragraph 15 above. Failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement may also result in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a United States District Court pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60120. VIII. Effective Date. 18. The “Effective Date” is the date on which this Agreement has been signed by both Bridger and PHMSA. IX. Modification. 19. The terms of this Agreement may only be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such modifications shall be in writing and signed by both parties. X. Termination. 20. With the exception of Sections 9 and 10 of this Agreement, which shall survive termination, the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement shall terminate upon: (a) Bridger’s payment of the civil penalty set forth in Paragraph 11; and, (b) Bridger’s satisfactory completion of the compliance terms set forth in Paragraph 15, pursuant to the submittal and 5#

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf, page 6review procedures set forth therein. Nothing in this Agreement precludes Bridger or PHMSA from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement. XI. Ratification. 21. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to this document. For PHMSA: For Bridger: Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator For Pipeline Safety _______ __________________, Managing Member Bridger Pipeline, LLC Date: Date: 6#