{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520186004","title":"BRIDGER SWAN RANCH, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.101(a), 195.403(b), 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.440(a), 195.446(a), 195.452(b)(2), 195.573(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520186004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BRIDGER SWAN RANCH, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.101(a),  195.403(b),  195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.440(a),  195.446(a),  195.452(b)(2),  195.573(c). The case was opened on 2018-02-28 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-30. Proposed civil penalty: $88,800. Assessed civil penalty: $81,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520186004_Closure Letter_10302020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Closure%20Letter_10302020.pdf\n\n520186004_Closure Letter_10302020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Closure%20Letter_10302020_text.pdf\n\n520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10102019.pdf\n\n520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf\n\n520186004_Final Order_05312019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Final%20Order_05312019.pdf\n\n520186004_Final Order_05312019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Final%20Order_05312019_text.pdf\n\n520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02282018.pdf\n\n520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02282018_text.pdf\n\n520186004_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_06172019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06172019.pdf\n\n520186004_Operator Response to Notice_03302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03302018.pdf\n\n520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 28, 2018\nMr. Otis Randle\nVice President of Environmental Safety and Regulatory Compliance\nBridger Environmental, LLC\n6100 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 1600\nPlano, Texas 75093-8230\nCPF 5-2018-6004\nDear Mr. Randle:\nOn August 29 through September 2, 2016, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode, inspected Bridger Logistics LLC’s (Bridger) Swan Ranch Facility in Cheyenne,\nWyoming.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged 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:\n\n\n\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline\nintegrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n(2) Include in the program an identification of each pipeline or pipeline segment\nin the first column of the following table not later than the date in the second\ncolumn:\nPipeline Date\nCategory 1…………………………...\nCategory 2…………………………...\nCategory 3…………………………...\nDecember 31, 2001.\nNovember 18, 2002.\nDate the pipeline begins operation.\nBridger violated 49 C.F.R. §195.452(b)(2) by failing to complete identification of pipeline\nsegments that could affect a High Consequence Area (HCA). Specifically, Bridger’s integrity\nmanagement program did not identify the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline segment as a\nhazardous liquid pipeline that could affect a HCA.1 During the inspection, a National\nPipeline Mapping System map overlay with the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline showed the\nentire pipeline segment was within a drinking water resource, making it a pipeline that could\naffect an HCA.2 Furthermore, this facility has been in service since November 2013 so it is a\ncategory 3 pipeline, requiring that HCAs be identified when the pipeline begins operation.3\nBy failing to identify the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline segment as a pipeline that could affect\nan HCA on the date the pipeline became operational, Bridger violated §195.452(b)(2).4\n1 According to 49 C.F.R. § 195.450, a “High Consequence Area” is (1) a commercially navigable waterway, (2) a\nhigh population area, (3) an “other populated area,” or (4) “an unusually sensitive area,” as more specifically\ndefined in § 195.6.\n2 According to 49 C.F.R §195.6, an “Unusually Sensitive Area (USA)” …means a drinking water or ecological\nresource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. 49\nC.F.R §195.6(a) defines a drinking water resource as “(1) The water intake for a Community Water System (CWS)\nor a Non-Transient Non-Community Water System (NTNCWS) that obtains its water supply primarily from a\nsurface water source and does not have an adequate alternative drinking water source; (2) The Source Water\nProtection Area (SWPA) for a CWS or a NTNCWS that obtains its water supply from a Class I or Class IIA aquifer\nand does not have an adequate alternative drinking water source. Where a state has not yet identified the SWPA,\nthe Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) will be used until the state has identified the SWPA; or (3) The sole source\naquifer recharge area where the sole source aquifer is a karst aquifer in nature.” See also Exhibit 1 to Violation\nReport.\n3 49 C.F.R. §195.452(a)(3).\n4 During the inspection, Bridger personnel admitted that they were not unaware this pipeline was in a HCA-could\naffect area. Violation Report at 6.\n2\n\n\n\n2. §195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a\ncontroller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a\npipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the requirements\nof this section. The procedures required by this section must be integrated, as\nappropriate, with the operator's written procedures required by § 195.402. An\noperator must develop the procedures no later than August 1, 2011, and must\nimplement the procedures according to the following schedule. The procedures\nrequired by paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section\nmust be implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by\nparagraphs (c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no\nlater than August 1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h)\nmust be implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any training\nrequired by another paragraph of this section must be implemented no later than\nthe deadline for that paragraph.\nBridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and follow written control room\nmanagement procedures that implement the requirements of this section. Bridger is the operator\nof a pipeline facility with a controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all\nor part of its pipeline facility through a SCADA system. At the time of the inspection, Bridger\nreferenced a control room management program in its Operations and Maintenance (O&M)\nmanual but when PHMSA requested to see this document, one could not be provided.5\nTherefore, Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a).\n3. §194.101 Operators required to submit plans\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, unless OPS grants a\nrequest from an Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to require an operator of\na pipeline in paragraph (b) to submit a response plan, each operator of an\nonshore pipeline facility shall prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA as\nprovided in §194.119. A pipeline which does not meet the criteria for significant\nand substantial harm as defined in §194.103(c) and is not eligible for an exception\nunder §194.101(b), can be expected to cause substantial harm. Operators of\nsubstantial harm pipeline facilities must prepare and submit plans to PHMSA for\nreview.\nBridger, an operator of an onshore pipeline facility that does not fall under any exceptions,\nfailed to prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA as provided in § 194.119.\nSpecifically, at the time of the inspection, Bridger had not submitted a plan to PHMSA for\nreview, therefore, violating § 194.101(a).\n5 See Bridger O&M Manual at 74.\n3\n\n\n\n4. §195.403 Emergency Response Training.\n(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, each operator shall:\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the\nemergency response training program set forth in paragraph (a) of this section;\nand\n(2) Make appropriate changes to the emergency response training program as\nnecessary to ensure that it is effective.\nBridger failed to demonstrate that it had conducted a review with personnel of their\nperformance in meeting the objectives of the company’s emergency response program, and\nhad made appropriate changes to the program as necessary to ensure that it was effective. At\nthe time of inspection, Bridger indicated that it conducted an annual review of its emergency\nresponse training in conjunction with its facility response plan; however, Bridger failed to\ndemonstrate it had reviewed with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the\nemergency response training and making appropriate changes to the training program to\nensure effectiveness, thereby violating §195.403(b).6\n5. §195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least\ntwice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly.\nBridger failed to inspect all mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, in accordance with § 195.420(b). During the inspection,\nBridger personnel did not provide evidence that they had inspected any of their mainline\nvalves for 2014 and 2016.7\n6. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times\neach calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline\nright-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other\nappropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nBridger failed to inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way at\nintervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. Bridger provided\n17 driving right-of-way patrolling records for 2015 and 13 driving right-of-way patrolling\nrecords for 2014.8 During the inspection, Bridger personnel admitted that the remaining\n6 During the inspection, Bridger personnel could not produce records or other substantiating evidence to\ndemonstrate that this was completed. Violation Report at 27.\n7 Id. at 34.\n8 Violation Report at 41.\n4\n\n\n\nrecords were not available and failed to provide other substantiating evidence that the\ninspections were performed. By failing to inspect the surface condition on its pipeline right-\nof-ways 26 times each of those calendar years, Bridger violated § 195.412(a).\n7. §195.440 Public awareness\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing\npublic education program that follows the guidance provided in the American\nPetroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3).\nBridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program\nmeeting the requirements of API 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to provide baseline\nmessages at the required frequency to its stakeholder audience, as required by API 1162,\nSection 2 Table 2-1 (Summary Public Awareness Communications for Hazardous Liquid and\nNatural Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators).9\n8. §195.440 Public awareness\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing\npublic education program that follows the guidance provided in the American\nPetroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see §195.3).\nBridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program\nmeeting the requirements of API 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to follow the requirement\nof API 1162, Section 3, by not identifying the affected public along its right of way.10\n9. §195.440 Public awareness\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing\npublic education program that follows the guidance provided in the American\nPetroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see § 195.3).\nBridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program\nmeeting the requirements of API 1162 in violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.440(a). Specifically,\nBridger failed to follow the requirement of API 1162, Section 2.3.1 (Public Education), by not\nestablishing a continuing education program to enable the public, appropriate government\norganizations, and persons engaged in excavation-related activities to recognize a pipeline\nemergency and to report it to the operator and/or the fire, police, or other appropriate\nofficials.11\n9 See Exhibit 2 to Violation Report at 10 (outlining message type, delivery frequency, and delivery method\nand/or media for public awareness communications to the stakeholder audience).\n10 Id. at 17-18 (identifying the audience(s) that should receive the program's messages).\n11 Id. at 5 (noting that pipeline operators must “establish continuing education programs to enable the public,\nappropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation-related activities to recognize a\n5\n\n\n\n10. §195.440 Public awareness\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing\npublic education program that follows the guidance provided in the American\nPetroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see §195.3).\nBridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program\nmeeting the requirements of API 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to follow the requirement\nof API 1162, Section 8.3 (Measuring Program Implementation), by not completing annual\naudit or review of its public awareness program.12 During the inspection, Bridger personnel\nwere unable to provide records demonstrating that it had completed annual audits or reviews\nof its public awareness program, in violation of API 1162, Section 8.3, and 49 C.F.R. §\n195.440(a).\n11. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the second\ncolumn.\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier…………………………………….. At least six times each\ncalendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 ½\nmonths\nBridger failed to perform electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding every 2 ½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015 in\naccordance with 195.404 (c)(3). During the inspection, Bridger personnel were unable to\nprovide records demonstrating that it had performed electrical checks of its rectifiers at the\nrequired intervals.13\npipeline emergency and to report it to the operator and/or the fire, police, or other appropriate public officials.\nThe programs are to be provided in both English and in other languages commonly used by a significant\nconcentration of non-English speaking population along the pipeline”).\n12 Id. at 27 (including a sample set of questions that will aid an operator in auditing the program implementation\nprocess, and outlining three alternative methodologies when completing an annual audit of program\nimplementation).\n13 See 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c)(requiring records of “each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection,\ninvestigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart” be maintained for “. . . at least 5 years.”); see also\nViolation Report at 76.\n6\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022\nfor a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $88,800\nas follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\nItem 5\nItem 6\nItem 11\n$30,900\n$10,100\n$47,800\nWarning Items\nWith respect to Items 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement\naction or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct\nthese items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 11 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance\nOrder to Bridger Logistics LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is\nenclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\n7\n\n\n\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2018-6004 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nHuy Nguyen\nActing Director, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 G. Ogirima (#154092)\n8\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Bridger Logistics LLC (Bridger) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Bridger\nLogistics LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to its integrity\nmanagement program, Bridger must identify the Swan Ranch Facility as a\npipeline that could affect a High Consequence Area (HCA) in its written\nintegrity management program within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to its control room\nmanagement program, Bridger must develop a control room management\nprogram within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to the submission of a\nfacility response plan, Bridger must submit its response plan for approval\nwithin 30 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to mainline valves,\nBridger must inspect each mainline valve to determine it is functioning\nproperly every 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year and submit\nthe inspections records for 2017 to PHMSA’s Western Region office by March\n31, 2018.\nIn regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to the pipeline rights-of-\nway and crossings under navigable waters, Bridger must inspect the surface\ncondition on or adjacent to each pipeline right of way at intervals not\nexceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year and submit the\ninspections records to PHMSA’s Western Region office by March 31, 2018\nIn regard to Item Number 11 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of\nrectifiers on their system, Bridger must electrically check each rectifier on their\nsystem for proper performance at least 6 times each calendar year but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 ½ months and submit the inspections records to\nPHMSA’s Western Region office by March 31, 2018\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Bridger maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Huy Nguyen, Acting Director, Western Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n9\n\n520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf\n\nOctober 10, 2019\nMr. Joshua Jamison\nManaging Member\nBridger Swan Ranch, LLC\n2291 Renauna Avenue\nCasper, Wyoming 82601\nRe: CPF No. 5-2018-6004\nDear Mr. Jamison:\nEnclosed please find my Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Bridger Swan\nRanch, LLC, in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision\ndenies the Petition. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nService of this Decision is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Paul Saffell, Chief Operating Officer, Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC\nMr. John Russell, General Manager, Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC\nCERTIFIED 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBridger Swan Ranch, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2018-6004\n)\n)\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nFrom August 29 through September 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Bridger\nSwan Ranch, LLC’s (Bridger or Petitioner), crude oil blending and tanking facility in Cheyenne,\nWyoming. The Bridger Swan Ranch Facility consists of five tanks totaling 225,000 barrels of\nblending and storage capacity for crude oil, 10 truck load/unload lanes, and pipeline connections\nto the Cheyenne Rail Hub and Sinclair’s pipeline to Guernsey, Wyoming.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner,\nby letter dated February 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Bridger\nhad committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and one violation of Part 194, and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $88,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Petitioner to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The five warning\nitems required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or\nface possible future enforcement action.\nBridger responded to the Notice by letter dated March 30, 2018 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Petitioner did not request a hearing and therefore\nwaived its right to one. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner submitted additional information about\nits compliance actions and again requested that the proposed civil penalties be withdrawn or\nreduced.\nOn May 31, 2019, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this\nproceeding, found that Bridger had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and one\nviolation of Part 194, assessed a reduced civil penalty of $81,600 for the violations, and ordered\nthat Bridger take certain corrective actions, as set forth in the Compliance Order that was part of\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-6004\nPage 2\nthe Final Order.1\nIn accordance with § 190.243, Bridger filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on June 14,\n2019, seeking reconsideration of the finding that it violated § 195.573(c) (Item 11) by failing to\nperform electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 2½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015, and requested that the $40,600\npenalty assessed for this Item be rescinded. In addition, Bridger requested that PHMSA\nreconsider and rescind all other penalties assessed in this matter.\nStandard of Review\nIn enforcement proceedings brought under 49 C.F.R. Part 190, respondents are afforded the right\nto petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order. That right, however,\ndoes not constitute an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. On the\ncontrary, it is an opportunity for respondents to present the Associate Administrator with\ninformation that was not previously available or to request that errors in the final order be\ncorrected. The Associate Administrator does not consider repetitious information, arguments, or\npetitions. In addition, any request for consideration of additional facts or arguments must be\nsupported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior\nto the issuance of the final order.\nAnalysis\nBefore turning to the merits, I will address the procedural adequacy of this Petition. Under Part\n190 of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, “[i]f [a] respondent requests the consideration of\nadditional facts or arguments [in a petition for reconsideration], the respondent must submit the\nreasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order.”2 In this case, Petitioner\nwishes to “bring to [PHMSA’s] attention a matter concerning the alleged violation regarding…\nItem 11.” However, the issue raised in this Petition was never mentioned in either of Bridger’s\nwritten responses to the Notice, and Petitioner has not provided a statement of the reasons why\nthose facts and arguments were not presented before the issuance of the Final Order. In fact, as\nexplained in more detail below, Respondent’s assertions in its Petition conflict with assertions\nand evidence provided in its Response.\nAccordingly, I find that Bridger has not complied with the procedural requirements for raising\nnew facts and arguments on reconsideration. Moreover, as Bridger has not properly raised any\nother arguments in this Petition, I am denying reconsideration on that basis and affirming the\nFinal Order without modification.\nNotwithstanding the procedural defects in the Petition, I have reviewed the record regarding Item\n11 in light of Petitioner’s arguments.\n1 Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2018-6004, (May 31, 2019) (available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n2 49 CFR § 190.243(b).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-6004\nPage 3\nItem 11 of the Final Order determined that Bridger violated § 195.573(c) by failing to perform\nelectrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 2½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015. In its Petition, Bridger claims that the\npipeline segments in question are protected by a passive anode system and no impressed current\nsystem (i.e., cathodic protection) is in use. Bridger asserted that because there were no rectifiers\nin place that would require electrical checks as provided in § 195.573(c), it is not possible for a\nviolation of § 195.573(c) to have occurred. It also stated that regular checks of the adequacy of\nthe passive anode system were made and documentation was provided to PHMSA. In addition,\nresults of a close interval survey on the two pipeline segments were provided to PHMSA at the\ntime of the inspection. It claimed that the electrical check records provided to PHMSA were\nassociated with the cathodic protection rectifiers for the facility tanks, which are covered under\n§ 195.573(d) rather than § 195.573(c). Therefore, Bridger argued that § 195.573(c) cited in the\nFinal Order does not apply to the cathodic protection system on the facility tankage, and that\nbecause no cathodic protection system with rectifiers exists for the pipeline segments, a violation\nof § 195.573(c) could not have occurred.\nHaving reviewed the record, I find Petitioner’s assertion is in conflict with its Response, in\nwhich Bridger enclosed logs of certain rectifier checks that were performed in 2014, 2015, 2016,\nand 2017, and did not contest the allegation that it failed to perform required checks at the\nintervals set forth in § 195.573(c) in 2014 and 2015.3 Petitioner also stated it has verified that\nrectifier checks are now being performed in compliance with applicable regulations, and it\nverified compliance using records of the same segments as far back as calendar year 2016.4 The\ndocumentation provided to PHMSA during the inspection is titled “Bridger Swan Ranch\nImpressed Current Rectifier Inspection” and explicitly states, “[r]ectifier provides CP for the\ntanks and facility piping only.”5\nBridger’s Petition does not explain the apparent conflict between its original position that these\npipeline segments were subject to § 195.573(c) and its new position that the pipeline segments\nwere never subject to § 195.573(c). It also does not explain the conflict between its new position\nand the evidence originally provided of rectifier records that Bridger claimed demonstrate the\nsame segments were brought into compliance with § 195.573(c).\nFinally, Petitioner did not submit evidence that these pipeline segments are indeed protected by a\npassive anode system, with no impressed current system (i.e., cathodic protection) in use.\nAccordingly, I remain persuaded by the evidence in the case file, including Bridger’s original\nadmission and accompanying evidence that the pipeline segments at issue were in violation of\n§ 195.573(c), as set forth in the Final Order.\nFor the above reasons, I decline to rescind or modify Item 11, therefore its accompanying civil\npenalty remains in effect. I find that Bridger has not presented any new information or other\nbasis in its Petition to support a penalty reduction. The assessed civil penalty of $40,600 for this\n3 Response, at 4, 9-11; Final Order at 7.\n4 Response, at 4, 9-11; Final Order at 7.\n5 Response, at 9-10.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-6004\nPage 4\nItem stands and Bridger’s petition on this Item is denied.\nIn addition, Bridger requested that PHMSA reconsider and rescind all other penalties assessed in\nthis matter due to the measures undertaken by Bridger to bring the facility into compliance and\nthe measures implemented to reduce the possibility of future violations. I do not find, however,\nthat such actions justify a civil penalty reduction. Bridger was ordered to take such actions to\nremediate existing violations and the operator is expected to take any other measures necessary\nto ensure future compliance with applicable safety standards. I therefore deny the Petition.\nConclusion\nBased on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby deny the\nPetition for the reasons set forth above.\nAll other terms of the Final Order remain in effect.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Questions\nconcerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325),\nFederal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd,\nOklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405)\n954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $81,600 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. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nThis Decision constitutes final agency action taken by PHMSA in the enforcement proceeding.\nThe terms and conditions of this Decision are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nOctober 10, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520186004_Closure Letter_10302020_text.pdf\n\nVIA E-MAIL TO MR. JOSHUA JAMISON\nOctober 30, 2020\nMr. Joshua Jamison\nManaging Member\nBridger Swan Ranch, LLC\n2291 Renauna Avenue\nCasper, WY 82601\nCPF 5-2018-6004\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Jamison:\nOn May 31, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nfinding of violation, Civil Penalty assessment and requirement to take corrective actions on your\npipeline. Based on PHMSA’s October 10, 2019 decision on your Petition for Reconsideration\nand confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied\nwith the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 G. Ogirima\n\n520186004_Final Order_05312019_text.pdf\n\nMay 31, 2019\nMr. Rich Fairservis\nChief Executive Officer\nThe Granite Peak Group\n1300 Venture Way, Suite 200\nCasper, Wyoming 82609\nRe: CPF No. 5-2018-6004\nDear Mr. Fairservis:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nBridger Swan Ranch, LLC. It makes findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of\n$81,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Bridger to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,\nWestern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Patrick M. Knapp, Senior Counsel, Bridger Logistics, LLC, 6100 W. Plano Parkway,\nSuite 1600, Plano, Texas 75093\nMr. Otis Randle, Vice President of Environmental Safety and Regulatory Compliance,\nBridger Environmental, LLC, 6100 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 1600, Plano, Texas\n75093\nCERTIFIED 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______________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBridger Swan Ranch, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2018-6004\na subsidiary of The Granite Peak Group, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 29 through September 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Bridger\nSwan Ranch, LLC’s (Bridger or Respondent), crude oil blending and tanking facility in\nCheyenne, Wyoming.1 The Bridger Swan Ranch Facility consists of five tanks totaling 225,000\nbarrels of blending and storage capacity for crude oil, 10 truck load/unload lanes, and pipeline\nconnections to the Cheyenne Rail Hub and Sinclair’s pipeline to Guernsey, Wyoming.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nBridger had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, one violation of Part 194, and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $88,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The\nfive warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable\nviolations or face possible future enforcement action.\n1 The NOPV was served on Bridger Logistics, LLC, and that company responded that it did not own or operate the\nBridger Swan Ranch Facility, but instead, the correct entity was Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC. Respondent Response\nto Notice (Mar. 30, 2018) at 1, 5. I note that Respondent files its Annual Report with PHMSA under the name\nBridger Transfer Services, LLC, using OPID 39046. At the time of the inspection and issuance of the NOPV, both\nBridger Logistics, LLC, and Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, were subsidiaries of Ferrellgas, L.P. On August 1, 2018,\nBridger Logistics, LLC, and Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, were sold. https://globenewswire.com/news-\nrelease/2018/08/01/1545902/0/en/Ferrellgas-Partners-L-P-Completes-Sale-of-Remaining-Bridger-Operations-and-\nGlobal-Sourcing-Business html. Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, was acquired by The Granite Peak Group.\nhttp://www.granitepeakindustries.com/companies/swan-ranch-midstream/.\n2 http://www.granitepeakindustries.com/companies/swan-ranch-midstream/.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-6004\nPage 2\nBridger responded to the Notice by letter dated March 30, 2018 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its ri","truncated":true,"body_characters":69267}