# BRIDGER PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520095034_Closure Letter_02052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Closure%20Letter_02052014.pdf

520095034_Closure Letter_02052014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Closure%20Letter_02052014_text.pdf

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10252013.pdf

520095034_Consent Agreement and Order_10252013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_10252013_text.pdf

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Corrected%20Final%20Order_08302012.pdf

520095034_Corrected Final Order_08302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Corrected%20Final%20Order_08302012_text.pdf

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Decision%20on%20Petition_12312012.pdf

520095034_Decision on Petition_12312012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_Decision%20on%20Petition_12312012_text.pdf

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09012009.pdf

520095034_NOPV PCP PCO_09012009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09012009_text.pdf

520095034_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

520095034_operator response_12222009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095034/520095034_operator%20response_12222009.pdf

520095034_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

520095034_Closure Letter_02052014_text.pdf

CERTIFIED 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



Agreement 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

DECEMBER 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



U.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).



2
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



3
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.



4
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.



5
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.



6
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.



7
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.



8
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.



9
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.



10
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

NOTICE 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.



Bridger 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



appears 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



7. §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
wheth
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 113561