{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520095034","title":"BRIDGER PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-09-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.302(a), 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(d)(2), 195.402(e)(9), 195.420(b), 195.432(b), 195.440(i), 195.54(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095034.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095034.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095034","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520095034","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BRIDGER PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.302(a),  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(13),  195.402(d)(2),  195.402(e)(9),  195.420(b),  195.432(b),  195.440(i),  195.54(a). The case was opened on 2009-09-01 and is reported as closed as of 2014-02-05. Proposed civil penalty: $70,000. Assessed civil penalty: $45,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520095034_Closure Letter_02052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Closure%20Letter_02052014.pdf\n\n520095034_Closure Letter_02052014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Closure%20Letter_02052014_text.pdf\n\n520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10252013.pdf\n\n520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10252013_text.pdf\n\n520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Corrected%20Final%20Order_08302012.pdf\n\n520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Corrected%20Final%20Order_08302012_text.pdf\n\n520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Decision%20on%20Petition_12312012.pdf\n\n520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Decision%20on%20Petition_12312012_text.pdf\n\n520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09012009.pdf\n\n520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09012009_text.pdf\n\n520095034_Operator Response and Request for Hearing_10292009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_10292009.pdf\n\n520095034_operator response_12222009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_operator%20response_12222009.pdf\n\n520095034_Petition For Review of Final Agency Action_02152013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Petition%20For%20Review%20of%20Final%20Agency%20Action_02152013.pdf\n\n520095034_Closure Letter_02052014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 5, 2014\nMr. Tad True\nVice President\nBridger Pipeline, LLC\n455 N. Poplar Street\nP.O. Drawer 2360\nCasper, WY 82601\nRE: CPF 5-2009-5034\nTermination of Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement)\nDear Mr. True:\nOn January 17, 2014, PHMSA received a letter responding to my letter of January 6, 2014,\nwhere-in I detailed additional alleged deficiencies in your procedures based on my staff’s\nreview of the records you had submitted. In your most recent letter, you detail how your\nsupervisory staff engages your operations and maintenance (O & M) personnel on a daily\nbasis. You also point to the fact that you do have records of modifications you have made to\nyour O & M manuals and procedures.\nI agree that your overall program for periodically reviewing the work done by operator to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found have been modified appropriately and\nappear to provide adequate direction to supervisory personnel to carry out this directive per the\nrequirements in 195.402(c)(13).\nItem 20 in “Section X. Termination.” Agreement, states:\n“20. With the exception of Sections 9 and 10 of this Agreement, which shall survive\ntermination, the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement shall terminate\nupon: (a) Bridger’s payment of the civil penalty set forth in Paragraph 11; and, (b)\nBridger’s satisfactory completion of the compliance terms set forth in Paragraph 15,\npursuant to the submittal and review procedures set forth therein. Nothing in this\n\n\n\nAgreement precludes Bridger or PHMSA from completing any of the obligations\nearlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.”\nI have confirmed the receipt of the civil penalty in this case in the amount of $45,000, on\nNovember 15, 2014. Therefore, I have determined that Bridger has satisfactory completed the\nterms set forth in Paragraph 12 (receipt of civil penalty specified in Paragraph 11) and 15, of\nthe agreement and that this agreement is terminated.\nIf there are any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (720)\n963-3160. Thank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 P. Katchmar/H. Nguyen\nBridger Pipeline, LLC - K. Dockweiler by e-mail\n\n520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 31, 2012\nMr. H.A. ‘Hank’ True\nPresident, True Companies\nBridger Pipeline, LLC\n455 N. Poplar\nP. O. Drawer 2360\nCasper, WY 82602\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-5034\nDear Mr. True:\nEnclosed is my Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Bridger Pipeline, LLC, in the\nabove-referenced case. The Decision grants, in part, and denies, in part, Bridger’s Petition for\nReconsideration. The remaining terms of the Final Order are in effect, including the assessment of\na civil penalty in the amount of $63,800. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of the Decision by\ncertified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure:\ncc: Mr. Tad True, Vice President - True Companies, Bridger Pipeline, LLC - 455 N. Poplar\nP. O. Drawer 2360, Casper, WY 82602\nMr. Colin G. Harris, Holme Bryan Cave, formerly Roberts & Owens, LLP, Counsel for\nBridger Pipeline, LLC, 1801 13th Street, Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, OPS Western Region\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBridger Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2009-5034\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nOn August 30, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a\nFinal Order in this proceeding, finding that Bridger Pipeline, LLC (Bridger or Petitioner), had\ncommitted six violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 195. The\nFinal Order assessed a reduced civil penalty of $63,800 for various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nOn September 24, 2012, Bridger submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final\nOrder, contesting the findings and requesting a review of Items 2-7 of the Final Order and the\nassociated civil penalties. First, the company argued that PHMSA erred in finding that it violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.202 (Item 2); 49 C.F.R. § 195.302 (Item 3); 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 4);\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 5); 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) (Item 6); and 49 C.F.R. §\n195.402(e)(9) (Item 7). Second, Bridger argued that PHMSA relied on hearsay statements in the\nPipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) to make findings of violation. Third, Bridger\nargued that the civil penalties assessed for Items 4 and 7 of the Final Order should be recalculated.\nStandard of Review\nA respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order.\nReconsideration is not a right to appeal or seek a de novo review of the record.1 It is an opportunity\nto present the Associate Administrator with previously unavailable information or to request that any\nerrors in the Final Order be corrected. Requests for consideration of new facts or arguments must be\nsupported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior to\nthe issuance of the Final Order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered.2\n1 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a)-(e).\n2 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(c).\n\n\n\n2\nFor the reasons set forth below, I am denying Bridger’s request for reconsideration of the finding\nthat it violated the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 5), 49 C.F.R. §\n195.402(d)(5) (Item 6), and 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9) (Item 7). I affirm the findings of violation\nin the Final Order, compliance order and the assessed civil penalty of $63,800. However, I am\nwithdrawing the findings that Bridger violated the requirements of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.202 (Item 2)\nand 195.302(a) (Item3). The associated compliance items for Item 2 are also withdrawn.\nAnalysis\nItem 2: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\nThe Final Order determined that Bridger failed to demonstrate that the above-ground piping\ninstalled for breakout tanks at its Poplar station, in either 2007 or early 2008, had been\nconstructed in accordance with the comprehensive written specifications or standards required by\n49 C.F.R. Part 195. I found that Bridger’s station piping is not ancillary to the system and that\nthe piping is capable of experiencing or being affected by the internal operating pressure of the\npipeline system.3\nIn its Petition, Bridger argued that Item 2 should be reversed because the regulation in effect at\nthe time of the alleged violation excepted from Part 195 requirements certain low stress pipelines\nand pipeline segments. According to Bridger, the Poplar Station pipeline met the criteria of the\nexception: the segment did not transport hazardous volatile liquids (HVL), was neither located in\na non rural area nor in a waterway segment, and operated at 20 percent of specified minimum\nyield strength (SMYS) or below. Further, Bridger contended that PHMSA did not meet its\nburden of proof that the segment operated in excess of 20 percent SMYS and erred by relying on\na February 2, 2006 accident report.\nTo clarify, it is the version of the regulation that is in effect at the time of the inspection that is\napplicable. The inspection was conducted on June 15 to 20, 2008. The final rule that brought\nlow stress pipeline under regulation was issued on June 3, 2008. However, the final rule did not\ngo into effect until July 3, 2008, after the inspection. Before July 3, 2008, certain pipelines\noperating at low-stress were except from 49 C.F.R. Part 195. The limited exception applied to a\nlow-stress onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that did not transport HVL; is located in a rural\narea; and is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial navigation.\nThus, the question is whether, at the time of the inspection, this limited exception applied to the\nabove-ground piping installed for breakout tanks at Bridger’s Poplar station. The breakout tank\npiping at the Poplar Station is part of the Poplar Pipeline System, as hazardous liquid moves\nthrough the line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to the line pipe and breakout\n3 Final Order at 3 and 5\n\n\n\n3\ntank. It is undisputed that the piping at the Poplar Pipeline station is an onshore pipeline segment\nthat does not transport HVL; is located in a rural area; and is located outside a waterway\ncurrently used for commercial navigation. However, to fall under the exception, the piping has\nto be operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the SMYS of the line pipe.4\nThe finding in the Final Order was based in part on the February 2, 2006 accident report as\nevidence that a component on a pipeline segment at the Poplar Station failed while operating in\nexcess of 20 percent of SMYS.5 In its Petition, Bridger argued that the accident report does not\ninvolve an incident at the Poplar Station; it involved an incident at the Baker, Montana pipeline\nstation, as indicated in the answers to questions 2-3 on page 1 of the accident report.6\nHowever, the accident report states on page 2, Part C-Origin of the Accident, Line 1a the “Line\nsegment name or ID Poplar Station”. Line 4 states that the “Failure occurred on Component”.\nOn page 4, Part I—Narrative Description of Factors Contributing to the Event, “A steel bar in a\nbarred tee of the Poplar pipeline prover broke off, allowing the prover ball to partially block the\nflow out of the prover. Wichita controllers picked up high pressure alarms on Poplar pipeline…”\nBridger’s accident report indicated that the accident occurred when a component failed on a\npipeline segment at the Poplar Station.\nGiven the conflicting information about the location of the accident, I have reconsidered the\naccident report that led to the finding that Petitioner’s Poplar line operated in excess of 20\npercent of SMYS. Although the accident report recorded the estimated pressure at the time of\nthe accident, the report omitted the specifications necessary to determine the internal design\npressure of the pipeline. The internal design pressure helps determine the SMYS level of the\npipe at the time of the accident. Under 49 C.F.R. § 195.106, the internal design pressure of a\npipe is calculated by inputting certain specific criteria into a predetermined formula. Without the\nspecific criteria to put into the formula, the stress level of the pipe cannot be determined. After\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the\npipe referenced in the accident report operated in excess of 20 percent SMYS at the time of the\naccident; or that the piping at the Poplar Station was exempt from Part 195 at the time of the\ninspection as a low-stress pipeline. Therefore, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation.\nNothing in this finding prevents PHMSA, in future enforcement actions, from alleging a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.202.\nItem 3: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a), which states:\n§ 195.302 General requirements.\n(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in § 195.305(b),\nno operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under\n4 49 C.F.R. §195.2 defines a low stress pipeline as a hazardous liquid pipeline that is operated in its entirety at a\nstress level of 20% or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe.\n5 Final Order at 4.\n6 Petition at 3.\n\n\n\n4\nthis subpart without leakage. In addition, no operator may return to\nservice a segment of pipeline that has been replaced, relocated, or\notherwise changed until it has been pressure tested under this subpart\nwithout leakage.\nThe Final Order determined that Bridger subsequently submitted a satisfactory pressure test\ndated June 15, 2010, to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(a) and there were no compliance terms\nfor Item 3 included in the Final Order. Petitioner repeated its argument that the breakout tank\npiping is a low stress line and not subject to system pressure and, therefore, is exempt from\n49 C.F.R. Part 195. Because I have withdrawn Item 2 above, Item 3 is also withdrawn.\nItem 4: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual\nshall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence,\nand appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Final Order determined that Bridger failed to review its Operations and Maintenance\n(O&M) manual at the required intervals, exceeding the maximum allowed interval by\napproximately 26 months. As stated in the Order, there was insufficient evidence that Bridger\nhad reviewed the manual from February 2005 until June 2007. Bridger’s manual was prepared\nin February 2005, which means that the first review would have been due no later than May\n2006. Bridger had not demonstrated that it performed the May 2006 review.\nIn its Petition, Bridger argued that PHMSA erred in finding that it violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), when the agency relied on hearsay statements in the Violation Report\nand an interview of Mr. Darin Schiller by the PHMSA inspector, and ignored testimony by\nMr. Gary Quinn, an affiant and witness at the hearing.\nFirst, with regard to Bridger’s hearsay contention, PHMSA’s informal hearings may consider\nhearsay evidence that would be inadmissible in federal courts. The hearings are conducted\ninformally without strict adherence to rules of evidence, 49 C.F.R. § 190.211(d). There is no\ndenial of due process when hearings are not conducted under the rules of evidence. In this case,\nhearsay evidence did not deprive Bridger of its right to a fair hearing. Bridger had an\nopportunity to be heard, cross-examine witnesses, and to submit relevant information and\nmaterial. The hearing officer may accept all, none, or part of any person’s testimony, and\ncredibility is always a consideration.\n\n\n\n5\nWith regard to PHMSA’s violation reports, these are kept in the regular course of business to\nrecord observations, activities, events, conditions, and interviews during an inspection, as shown\nby the testimony of the PHMSA inspector. During the inspection, Bridger was unable to provide\ndocumentation to demonstrate compliance. In making a finding, I weighed evidence and\ncredibility, including the statements of Mr. Schiller in the Violation Report, and the testimony of\nMr. Quinn and PHMSA’s inspector. Mr. Schiller and Mr. Quinn had worked for Bridger for\nyears and made statements of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered. The determining\nfactor was the lack of documentation. Without documentation to demonstrate compliance, I\nfound insufficient evidence that Bridger had performed a review of its O&M manual from\nFebruary 2005 until June 2007. Petitioner has not presented any new evidence to contradict that\nfinding. I find no basis to alter the finding of the Final Order.\nItem 5: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13), which\nstates:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) ….\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) ….\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation\nand maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are\nfound.\nThe Final Order determined that Bridger failed to demonstrate that it reviewed the work\nperformed by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of its procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance, within the intervals required by its Normal Operating Procedures\n3.8.7\nIn its Petition, Bridger argued that the finding made in Item 5 of the Final Order should be\nreversed. Petitioner contended that it was cited for failing to have an O&M manual containing\nprocedures for reviewing deficiency reviews and abnormal events, but the Final Order found\nBridger violated the regulation by failing to follow its procedures.\nContrary to the Petitioner’s contention, the Notice alleged that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. §\n195.402(c)(13) by failing to demonstrate that it had periodically reviewed personnel\nperformances to determine the effectiveness of normal O&M procedures and had taken\ncorrective action where deficiencies were found, as required by the company’s Normal\nOperating Procedures, Section 3.8. Specifically, Bridger had not demonstrated that it had\nperformed the required annual review of work done by its personnel in accordance with its\n7 Violation Report, Exhibit B at 20.\n\n\n\n6\nprocedures. In Item 5 of the Final Order, I found that to comply with the regulation Bridger\nmust be able to demonstrate that reviews, as required by its procedures, had been performed. 8\nThe Final Order determined that there was insufficient evidence to show Bridger had actually\nreviewed the work performed by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of its procedures\nused in normal O&M, within the intervals required by its Normal Operating Procedures 3.8.\nHaving reviewed the evidence provided in the Notice of Probable Violation, Violation Report,\nResponse and Petition, I find that PHMSA met its burden of proof in sustaining the finding of\nviolation. Bridger’s petition for Item 5 is denied. Bridger must therefore complete the actions\nspecified in the Compliance Order.\nItem 6: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5), which\nstates:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance.\n(a) ….\n(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety when\noperating design limits have been exceeded:\n(1) ….\n(5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal\noperation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nThe Final Order determined that Bridger failed to demonstrate it had performed reviews of the\nwork performed by its personnel and contractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to\ndetermine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures.9\nIn its Petition, Petitioner repeated the argument made in Item 5 above that there was no violation\nof 49 C.F.R. §195.402 because Bridger’s O&M Manual contained the required review\nprocedures. The Final Order determined that there was insufficient evidence to show Bridger\nhad actually reviewed the work performed by its personnel and contractors to evaluate responses\nto abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures.10 I find\nno basis to conclude that Bridger performed reviews of the work performed by its personnel and\ncontractors to evaluate responses to abnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of\nabnormal operating procedures. Having reviewed the evidence provided in the Notice of\nProbable Violation, Violation Report, Response and Petition, I find that PHMSA met its burden\nof proof in sustaining the finding of violation. Bridger’s petition for Item 6 is denied. Bridger\nmust therefore complete the actions specified in the Compliance Order.\n8 See In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2009-5034, (Aug. 30, 2012) at 8. (available\nat www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n9 Final Order at 10.\n10 Final Order at 10.\n\n\n\n7\nItem 7: The Final Order determined that Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(e)(9), which\nstates in relevant part:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) ….\n(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety when\nan emergency condition occurs; . . .\n(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to\ndetermine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nIn Item 7 of the Final Order, I found that Bridger failed to demonstrate that it performed post-\naccident reviews no later than 45 days after the four accidental hazardous liquid releases on its\nPoplar pipeline were no longer considered emergencies, as required by the company’s O&M\nManual.\nIn its Petition, Bridger argued that Item 7 should be reversed for the same reason as Items 5-6\nabove because Bridger’s O&M Manual contains the review procedures. Bridger contended that\nthe evidence was ignored, or there was confusion because Bridger filled out one Incident\nResponse Review form in preparation for the hearing.11 Bridger also contended that it “openly\nand directly advised PHMSA and the hearing officer at the hearing that this was not a\ncontemporaneous record”, but was “based on was based on contemporaneous diary entries of the\nperson responsible for responding to the event.”12\nAs stated in the Order, at the hearing, PHMSA testified that Bridger did not provide any\ndocumentation to the OPS inspector to demonstrate compliance during the inspection. PHMSA\nalso testified that Bridger created at least one of its incident response review forms years after the\nfact using handwritten notes from a former employee, and the handwritten notes used as the basis\nfor that re-creation did not include all of the information required for an adequate post-accident\nreview. The agency also asserted that the evidence showed that at least one of the required post-\naccident reviews of employee activities did not occur. 13\nDuring the hearing, Bridger presented a record for the purpose of demonstrating compliance\nyears after the accident. Bridger was warned that the handwritten notes of a former employee\ncould be submitted but not post-accident review records created for the purpose of the hearing.\nIn fact, during a side bar, the hearing officer questioned and advised Bridger of the potential\nimplications of knowingly creating a record from a diary, years after the accident, for the\npurpose of the hearing, and after receipt of the Notice to demonstrate compliance. The\n11 Petition at 5.\n12 Id.\n13 Final Order at 11.\n\n\n\n8\nrequirement to create and maintain post-accident review records means the record must be\ncreated contemporaneously with the required activity. Creating a record years after an accident\ndoes not meet the regulatory requirement to maintain complete post-accident records. In making\na finding, I weighed evidence and credibility. After considering Bridger’s Petition, I find no\nreason to alter the finding in the Final Order.\nCivil Penalty\nPetitioner argued that the civil penalties assessed for Items 4 and 7 of the Final Order should be\nrecalculated.\nSpecifically, Petitioner argued that the $35,000 civil penalty assess for Item 4 should be\ndismissed because Bridger did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a); the civil penalty is based on\nan incorrect factual assumption about the status of Bridger employees and it is not supported by\nthe evidence.\nBridger also made an alternative argument that, even if there was a violation, the reduced civil\npenalty is miscalculated, the basis for the penalty is not in the Final Order, and the statutorily\nrequired mitigation factors were addressed in a generic way. Bridger contended that it was found\nto have “exceeded the maximum allowed interval by approximately 26 months”, based on a\ndifference between February 2005 and June 2007. Bridger contended that it did not “exceed” the\nallowed interval by 26 months; the interval was exceeded at most by 11 months, and the penalty\nshould at most be $14,800.\nFirst, Petitioner was found to have violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) in the Final Order. The\nfinding of violation stands, as discussed above and in more detail in the Final Order.\nFurthermore, the civil penalty for this violation was reduced to $28,800 in the Final Order.\nSecond, I found in the Final Order that the foundation of the penalty amount was based on the\ngravity of the violation and the circumstances surrounding the violation, including the number of\nreviews that Bridger failed to perform and exceeding the maximum interval for review. In\nparticular, I found the nature and circumstances of Petitioner’s failure to review its O&M manual\nbeyond the regulatory deadline justified the assessment of the full proposed penalty amount. On\nthe other hand, I found Bridger had performed reviews of its O&M Manual on June 12, 2007 and\nJune 11, 2008, which factored into my decision to reduce the civil penalty. After considering\nBridger’s Petition, I find no reason to further reduce the civil penalty. Bridger must therefore\npay the reduced civil penalty of $28,800.\nWith regard to Item 7, Petitioner argued that the $35,000 civil penalty assessed for this item\nshould be reduced by three-quarters because it proved “that three of the four reviews occurred at\nor near the time of the incidents and that Mr. Quinn prepared near-contemporaneous Incident\nReview Forms.”14\n14 Petition at 7.\n\n\n\n9\nAs discussed above and in the Final Order, Bridger did not provide any documentation to the\nOPS inspector to demonstrate compliance during the inspection. In making a finding, I weighed\nevidence and credibility. Bridger created at least one of its incident response review forms years\nafter the accident, for the purpose of the hearing, and after receipt of the Notice to demonstrate\ncompliance. Thus, I found no basis to reduce the civil penalty.\nPetitioner expressed concern with the statement in the Final Order that “[i]n general, Bridger has\na poor compliance history.”15 Bridger maintained that two of the Final Orders cited in the Final\nOrder involve Bridger Lake, LLC, a company not affiliated with Bridger. Further, one Bridger\ncase, CPF No. 5-2007-5003, was double counted by including both the Final Order and the\nDecision on Petition for Reconsideration.\nThere is a footnote containing a typographical error that includes a Bridger Lake Corrective\nAction Order and Consent Agreement. PHMSA will provide Bridger with a copy of the Final\nOrder with the revised footnote. Notwithstanding the revision, Bridger’s history demonstrates\nthat it cognizant of the regulations, culpable for the violations, and that the company’s history of\nprior offenses supported the penalty.16 Bridger operated the subject pipeline during the time in\nquestion, and therefore was responsible for compliance with the applicable pipeline safety\nregulations. This fact is well-supported in the record.\nAfter considering Bridger’s Petition, I find no reason to reduce the assessed $35,000 civil penalty\nfor Item 7.\nConclusion\nBased on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 109.215(c), I grant, in part, and deny, in part, Bridger’s Petition. Notwithstanding\nsuch finding, I have considered all the information and arguments submitted by Petitioner and\nfind no basis to reconsider or alter the $63,800 civil penalty and associated compliance items.\nPayment of the $63,800 civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is now due. The payment\ninstructions were set forth in detail in the Final Order. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. §\n89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions\nare contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\n15 Petition at 7.\n16 Belle Fourche Pipeline Company, Bridger Pipeline Company, LLC (Bridger), and Butte Pipeline Company share\nthe same manual of operating procedures and some of the same employees and officers. See In the Matter of Butte\nPipeline Company, CPF No. 5-2007-5008, Final Order (Aug. 17, 2009). See also, In the Matter of Belle Fourche\nPipeline Company, CPF No. 5-2007-5002, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration ( A single hearing was held and\nthe companies jointly submitted a single Post-Hearing Submittal.) PHMSA also correctly recorded Bridger’s\nenforcement history: See also, In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated January 9, 2007, CPF No.\n5-2005-5017; In the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated February 16, 2006, CPF No. 3-2005-5036;\nIn the Matter of Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, dated April 2, 2009, CPF No. 5-2007-5003; and In the Matter\nof Bridger Pipeline, LLC, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, dated June 16, 2009, CPF No. 5-2007-5003.\n\n\n\n10\nFinancial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $63,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Failure to pay\nthe civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate\naction in a district court of the United States.\nThis Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\n___________________________________ ____________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 1, 2009\nMr. Tad True\nVice President True Oil\nBridger Pipeline, LLC\n895 W. River Cross Road\nP.O. Drawer 2360\nCasper, WY 82602\nCPF 5-2009-5034\nDear Mr. True:\nOn June 15 to June 20, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your\nPoplar pipeline in eastern Montana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. §195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported\nunder §195.50 shall as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days after\ndiscovery of the accident, prepare and file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-\n1, or a facsimile.\n(b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information reported or\nadditions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall file a supplemental\nreport within 30 days.\n\n\n\nBridger Pipeline (BPL) failed to provide all the information required by DOT Form 7000-1 for\na spill that occurred on April 23, 2008. DOT Form 7000-1 for accident report 20080161 –\n7153 reported the information regarding this spill on May 13, 2008. The report was\ndesignated as a “final” report yet the form is missing a lot of key accident information.\n2. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive\nwritten specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of\nthis part.\nBPL did not document that the recent construction of regulated piping between the Poplar\npipeline and the Poplar station breakout tanks were conducted in accordance with written\nspecifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 195. BPL\ninstalled above ground piping for their breakout tanks (BOTs) at their Poplar station in either\n2007 or early 2008, but they were unable to locate the inspection, welding, or material\ncertifications for this project.\n3. §195.302 General requirements.\n(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in §195.305(b) , no operator\nmay operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure tested under this subpart\nwithout leakage. In addition, no operator may return to service a segment of\npipeline that has been replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed until it has been\npressure tested under this subpart without leakage.\nBPL failed to perform a pressure test on the Poplar station BOT piping installed in 2007 or\nearly 2008. BPL has no records or knowledge of a pressure test ever being conducted for the\nPoplar station BOT piping installed during this period.\n4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\ncommence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nBPL did not review at the required frequency their manuals of written procedures for normal\noperation and maintenance, handling abnormal operations, and responding to emergencies. It\n2\n\n\n\nappears that no procedural manual reviews were completed from February 2005 until June\n2008. This interval between reviews exceeded the maximum allowed interval by 25 months.\nFurther, interviews with BPL personnel as well as revision dates shown at the bottom of the\npages for the BPL manuals reflect that there has not been a review of BPL procedures since\n2005.\n5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nBPL failed to periodically review the work done by their personnel and contractors in order to\ndetermine the effectiveness of procedures used in normal operation and maintenance. BPL\nNormal Operating Procedures Section 3.8 requires that BPL perform annual reviews of\npersonnel performance to determine the effectiveness of normal operation and maintenance\nprocedures. BPL could not provide any records showing that the required annual reviews were\ncompleted.\n6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section\nmust include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design\nlimits have been exceeded;\n(5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking\ncorrective action where deficiencies are found.\nBPL failed to periodically review the procedures used by their personnel and contractors to\ncontrol abnormal operation and take corrective action where deficiencies are found. BPL\nAbnormal Operating Procedures Section 6.3 requires a review of personnel responses to\nabnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures. BPL\ncould not provide records showing there has been periodic review of personnel response to\nabnormal operations to determine the effectiveness of abnormal operating procedures.\nInterviews indicate that this has been done informally but there have not been any records kept\nof these reviews.\n3\n\n\n\n7. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must\ninclude procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency\ncondition occurs;\n(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine\nwheth","truncated":true,"body_characters":113561}