CPF 520195016W
CPF 520195016W
520195016W_Warning Letter_12122019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFWARNING LETTER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED December 12, 2019 Mr. H. A. True, III President Bridger Pipeline LLC P.O. Box 2360 Casper, WY 82602-2360 CPF 5-2019-5016W Dear Mr. True: On January 31 through February 1, August 5 through 9, August 12 through 16, and September 9 through 13, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected your Bridger Pipeline LLC’s Poplar Crude System in Casper, Wyoming and in the Glendive, Montana area. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The item inspected and the probable violations is: 1. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (a) . . . (l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance? (1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection:#
520195016W_Warning Letter_12122019_text.pdf, page 2(i) A written integrity management program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section. Bridger Pipeline lacked documents that supported the decision of which type of In-Line- Inspection (ILI) tool was selected. The type of ILI assessment tool selected was listed in the ILI schedule. The ILI schedule lacked justification as to why the specific ILI tool was selected based on threats identified for the pipeline. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Bridger Pipeline LLC being subject to additional enforcement action. No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to CPF 5-2019-5016W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Sincerely, Dustin Hubbard Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 Jeff Gilliam (#162663) Jared Radosevich, Pipeline Compliance Coordinator (via email) 2#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.