# COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation **Citation:** CPF 220185003 **Type / status:** enforcement / historical **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** 2018-08-28 CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(b), 195.505(d). ## Document text Notice of Probable Violation involving COLONIAL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(b), 195.505(d). The case was opened on 2018-08-28 and is reported as closed as of 2026-03-13. Proposed civil penalty: $67,000. Assessed civil penalty: $61,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status. Official case documents: 220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Closure%20Letter_03132026_(16-154847S).pdf 220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Closure%20Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf 220185003_Final Order_07132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Final%20Order_07132020.pdf 220185003_Final Order_07132020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Final%20Order_07132020_text.pdf 220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08282018.pdf 220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08282018_text.pdf 220185003_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_09282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09282018.pdf 220185003_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_10292019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_10292019.pdf 220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272019.pdf 220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf 220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf September 27, 2019 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: Catherine.Little@troutman.com and James.Urisko@dot.gov Ms. Catherine Little Counsel for Colonial Pipeline Company Troutman Sanders 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. James Urisko Director, Southern Region, PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: Notice of Hearing, Colonial Pipeline Company CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Dear Ms. Little and Mr. Urisko: In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. The hearing has been scheduled to take place on November 1, 2019, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The hearing will be at the PHMSA Southern Region office, 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30303. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo identification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is (404) 832-1140. Both parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (October 22, 2019), along with a list of attendees, and the names of any witnesses who may testify. You may provide this information electronically. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 366-6139 or at kristin.baldwin@dot.gov. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kristin Baldwin Presiding Official cc (email): Mr. Forrest Pittman, Counsel, Southern Region, OPS 220185003_Final Order_07132020_text.pdf July 13, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jblount@colpipe.com Mr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company 1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100 Alpharetta, Georgia 30009 Re: CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Dear Mr. Blount: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $61,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Colonial Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Troutman Sanders, LLP, catherine.little@troutman.com Ms. Anne M. Cook, Esq., Troutman Sanders, LLP, annie.cook@troutman.com CONFIRMATION OF 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 ) Colonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 2-2018-5003 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER Beginning November 30, 2016, following receipt of a November 2, 2016 Congressional letter requesting an investigation of Colonial Pipeline Company’s (Colonial or Respondent) maintenance and oversight activities and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Colonial’s facilities and records in Alpharetta, Georgia. Colonial's system extends from Texas to New York and consists of more than 5,500 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated August 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Colonial had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) and (d) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $67,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain actions to correct the alleged violations. Colonial responded to the Notice by letter dated September 28, 2018 (Response). Colonial contested one of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, sought mitigation or elimination of the proposed penalty, and requested a hearing. Colonial also requested a settlement meeting with the Southern Region. As a result of subsequent discussions with the Region, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing by letter dated October 29, 2019, and the Region recommended certain modifications to the proposed compliance terms.2 I have reviewed the record and hereby issue this Final Order without further proceedings. 1 Colonial website, About Colonial, available at https://www.colpipe.com/about-us/our-company/system-map (last accessed June 12, 2020). 2 Respondent’s Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, at 1 (October 29, 2019) (on file with PHMSA). CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Page 2 FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d), which states: § 195.505 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a) . . . (d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual’s performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as defined in Part 195; The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d) by failing to evaluate certain individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed to several accidents, as defined in Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial failed to document, for three reportable accidents, whether the performance of a covered task was involved, whether performance of a covered task contributed to the accident, or which Colonial personnel performed any covered tasks during the activities leading to each accident. The Notice further alleged that Colonial was unable to confirm that it had completed any documentation indicating that the individuals’ qualifications were suspended, as required by Appendix D, Disqualification and Suspension, of the company’s written Operator Qualification (OQ) program; that such Appendix D information had been forwarded to the company’s OQ Coordinator; or that it had notified Colonial’s Technical Training Department, as required by Section 12 of the company’s OQ program. These three incidents were documented on PHMSA Form 7000-1 (PHMSA Accident Report) and have the following report numbers and submittal dates: (1) No. 20140287- 20157, dated August 11, 2014; (2) No. 2015286-20902, dated August 13, 2015; and (3) No. 20150326-22637,3 dated September 12, 2015. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Respondent, however, did request a reduction in the proposed civil penalty based on an additional explanation provided to clarify the facts at issue. This request for reduction is discussed in greater detail below. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d) by failing to evaluate individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed to accidents, as defined in Part 195. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states: § 195.505 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a) . . . (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; 3 The Notice incorrectly lists the last five digits of the report number as 20739. CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Page 3 The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing certain covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that evaluation material from three service providers that Colonial’s OQ program relied upon failed to evaluate an individual’s knowledge, skill, and ability to perform a given covered task. The Notice alleged that the evaluation methods used to determine an individual’s knowledge of the task, as well as performance verifications to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task, for four specific covered tasks were inadequate to constitute a valid evaluation process. These included Covered Task 7.6, “Apply Coating Using Spray Application”; Covered Task 7.7, “Perform Coating Inspection”; Covered Task 32.0, “Observation of Excavation Activities”; and Covered Task 39.0, “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance.” Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Respondent, however, requested a modification of the proposed compliance order to reflect the efforts Colonial had already taken to comply with the proposed terms. These modified terms, which Southern Region has recommended for approval through its Region Recommendation,4 are reflected in the Compliance Order below. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.5 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $67,000 for the violations cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $67,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.505(d), for failing to evaluate individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed to three separate accidents, as defined in Part 195. In its Response, Colonial provided an explanation of the facts at issue, arguing for a reduction in the proposed penalty. First, Colonial contended that the work being performed at the time of one of the accidents or leading up to the 4 PHMSA Region Recommendation, dated November 16, 2019 (on file with PHMSA), at 2. 5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223. CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Page 4 accident did not include the performance of a covered task. Specifically, Colonial claimed that a covered task was not being performed at the time of or leading up to the accident documented on PHMSA Accident Report No. 20150326-22637,6 dated September 12, 2015.7 Colonial stated that the accident was caused by a mini-excavator striking a thread-o-ring fitting that was connected to one of Colonial’s mainline pipelines at its Kannapolis facility in North Carolina. Colonial further explained that the excavator was delivering backfill materials to other individuals who were performing Covered Task No. 39, “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance.” Colonial, therefore, contended that the individual operating the mini-excavator was not actively engaged in excavating or backfilling activities as described in Covered Task No. 39. The Notice alleged that all three accidents occurred while performing excavation and backfilling activities, which require both Covered Task No. 39, as well as Covered Task No. 32, “Observation of Excavation Activities.” Neither the Notice, the Pipeline Safety Violation Report, nor the Region Recommendation provided more detailed information on the specific covered tasks that were allegedly being performed at the time of or leading up to each of the three accidents. Instead, the Region only offered a general application of two covered tasks to all three accidents without further explanation. Therefore, based on the clarification of the facts provided by Colonial, and the lack of evidence in the record refuting these facts, including PHMSA Accident Report No. 20150326-22637, I find that a reduction in the proposed penalty is warranted and that the number of instances of violation under “Part E6 – Gravity” of the Violation Report should be reduced from three to two.8 Next, Colonial contended that it had properly assessed whether the performance of a covered task could have contributed to the accidents and whether an individual’s OQ should be suspended or withdrawn for each of the accidents. However, Colonial also conceded that there was no documentation that such assessments ever occurred. I find that this violation is not simply a recordkeeping violation, but, instead, an activity violation based on the lack of any documentation demonstrating that Respondent actually performed the assessments as required by § 195.505(d) and Colonial’s own OQ procedures. Moreover, Colonial failed to provide any justification for its failure to either follow its OQ procedures or comply with a regulation that is clearly applicable. Therefore, I find no reason to reduce the penalty under the criteria of nature, culpability, or good faith. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $61,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d). Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal 6 The Response incorrectly lists the last five digits of the report number as 20739. 7 According to Part H – Narrative Description of the Accident on PHMSA Form 7000-1, “[o]n August 13, 2015 at approximately 11:00am, a contract crew backfilling the L2 Station Discharge Valve struck a ¾ inch valve attached to the top of Line 2” (on file with PHMSA). 8 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (August 28, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 19. CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Page 5 Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $61,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d). In its Recommendation, the Southern Region supported modification of the proposed compliance order in order to more closely reflect the efforts that Colonial has already taken to comply with the proposed terms.9 Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(d) (Item 2), Respondent must: a. Perform a gap analysis of Colonial’s procedures versus API RP 1161, Recommended Practice for Pipeline Operator Qualification, within 15 months of issuance of the Final Order. Colonial must develop protocols for the gap analysis, and provide a gap analysis report and procedure for managing, documenting, and addressing communication on identified gaps. b. Develop audit protocols and process for OQ Service Provider Programs relative to API RP 1161 within three months of issuance of the Final Order. c. Conduct audits of vendor programs relative to API RP 1161 and provide the audit reports, both individual ones for each covered task and consolidated, no later than 60 months after the issuance of the Final Order. d. Provide quarterly process reports on Colonial’s actions and results until this case is closed. 9 Withdrawal of Request for Hearing (October 29, 2019), at 1 (on file with PHMSA). CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Page 6 2. Colonial must submit to Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, documentation demonstrating compliance with and/or completion of the corrective actions listed above in Item 1(a) through 1(d). The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. July 13, 2020 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 230 Peachtree Street N.W. Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30303 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: MLittle@colpipe.com; QFrazier@colpipe.com March 13, 2026 Melanie Little President and Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company 1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Re: CPF No. 2-2018-5003 Dear Ms. Little: On July 13, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Colonial Pipeline Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a civil penalty and an Order to comply with 49 CFR 195.505(b). PHMSA has confirmed receipt of payment of the civil penalty as of July 21, 2020. Further, PHMSA has confirmed satisfactory completion of all required elements of the Compliance Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is required. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, James A. Urisko Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration CC: James Urisko, Director, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety, Southern Region Quintin Frazier, Director, Pipeline Compliance, Colonial Pipeline QFrazier@colpipe.com 220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018_text.pdf NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 28, 2018 Mr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr. President & Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company 1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30009-4765 CPF 2-2018-5003 Dear Mr. Blount: Beginning November 30, 2016, following the November 2, 2016, Congressional letter requesting investigation in to Colonial Pipeline Company’s maintenance and oversight activities, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Colonial Pipeline Company’s (Colonial) Operator Qualification (OQ) Program in Alpharetta, Georgia. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Colonial has committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are: 1. §195.505 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a)… (d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual’s performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as defined in Part 195… Colonial failed to comply with the regulation because it did not evaluate individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed to accidents, as required in Part 195. Section 12 of Colonial’s Operator Qualification (OQ) Program, titled “Post Accident Investigations,” contained requirements for post-accident review in the event of a pipeline accident. Specifically, Section 12 required Colonial to determine if a covered task was being performed at the time of, or leading up to, the accident, and whether performance of a covered task contributed to the accident. This review was to be performed in accordance with Corporate Procedure 16, titled “Incident Analysis and Near Miss Process,” using Colonial’s Learning from Experience and Analysis Process (LEAP). Section 12 further required that Colonial determine whether performance of a covered task may have contributed to the accident and, if so, “all personnel who were performing the Covered Tasks will have their qualifications immediately suspended until it can be determined whether his/her action contributed to the accident.” Section 12 further indicates that such suspensions are to be documented using Appendix D of Colonial’s OQ Program, titled “Disqualification and Suspension.” Moreover, Section 12 specifies that if an individual’s qualifications are suspended or revoked, the Appendix D documentation is to be forwarded to Colonial’s OQ Coordinator, who in turn is to notify the Technical Training Department designee responsible for updating Covered Task qualification records in Colonial’s Learning Management System. During its review, PHMSA identified three reportable accidents on the Colonial system where performance of a covered task caused or contributed to the accident. These accidents were documented on PHMSA Form 7000-1, titled “Accident Report-Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems,” and submitted electronically via the Online Data Entry System (ODES). The specific report numbers and submittal dates are as follows:  No. 20140287-20157 Date 08/11/2014  No. 20150286-20902 Date 08/13/2015  No. 20150326-20738 Date 09/12/2015 All three accidents occurred while performing excavation or backfilling activities. Per Colonial’s OQ program, these activities required Covered Tasks 32.0 and 39.0, titled “Observation of Excavation Activities” and “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance,” respectively. Colonial documented its response to each of the above-referenced reportable accidents in an Incident Analysis Report. Each Incident Analysis Report documents actions taken by Colonial in response to each respective accident. None of the Incident Analysis Reports documented that performance of a covered task was involved, whether performance of a covered task contributed to the accident, or which individuals performed any covered tasks during the activities leading to each accident. Furthermore, Colonial personnel were unable to confirm any Appendix D “Disqualification or Suspension” documentation had been completed, that any information was forwarded to the OQ Coordinator, or that Colonial’s Technical Training Department was notified, as required by Section 12 of Colonial’s Operator Qualification Program. Consequently, Colonial was unable to demonstrate its compliance with § 195.505(d). 2 2. §195.505 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a)… (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified… Colonial failed to comply with the regulation because it did not ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. At the time of PHMSA’s inspection, Colonial’s OQ program relied on three OQ service providers to provide evaluation material, herein referred to as OQ Service Provider A, B and C. PHMSA’s review identified several instances where the evaluation material across the three service providers was inadequate to evaluate an individual’s knowledge, skill and ability to perform a given covered task. All three service providers relied on a written, electronic, or verbal examination to evaluate an individual’s knowledge of the covered task, as well as a performance verification to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the covered task. Evaluation materials were identified that were not applicable to the given covered task or lacked a sufficient number of questions, or questions of sufficient detail, to evaluate an individual’s knowledge of the task. Furthermore, performance verification material was identified that did not require performance of the task. Moreover, at least one of Colonial’s service providers’ evaluation materials required knowledge of Colonial procedures and policies despite the fact that Colonial’s OQ program itself did not contain provisions for assuring knowledge of these procedures and policies. Consequently, the above-referenced evaluation materials were not developed and tailored to specific provisions and operational parameters of Colonial’s OQ program. The following examples detail four Covered Tasks with evaluation methods for determining an individual’s knowledge of the task, as well as performance verification to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task, that were found to be inadequate: 1. Covered Task 7.7, titled “Perform Coating Inspection” Colonial’s OQ Program accepted two examinations from OQ Service Provider A, one of which was titled Aboveground Pipe Coating and Inspection. This examination could be used to evaluate an individual’s knowledge of the task. PHMSA’s review of the above- referenced examination determined that it was inadequate for determining an individual’s knowledge of the task. Of the 20 multiple choice questions included in the evaluation, no questions examined the individual’s knowledge of evaluating surface preparation, measuring coating thickness, visually inspecting coatings or conducting holiday testing. Understanding of each of these aspects of a coating inspection is fundamental to demonstrating knowledge of the task. The OQ plan accepted two performance verifications from OQ Service Provider A, Visual Inspection for Atmospheric Coating and Use Coating Inspection Tools, either of which could be used to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task. The 3 2. performance verification Visual Inspection for Atmospheric Coating was not applicable to performing visual coating inspections. It was intended for atmospheric corrosion inspections and did not address the use of any type of coating inspection equipment. The performance verification Use Coating Inspection Tools was inadequate to the task. It required the individual to conduct wet film and dry film thickness measurements, electronic holiday detection test and adhesion tests but did not require evaluation of surface preparation or measurement of surface temperature, ambient temperature, dew point or relative humidity all of which are required, and fundamental, to perform the task. The OQ plan accepted two examinations and the accompanying performance verifications from OQ Service Provider B, Prevention of Atmospheric Corrosion and Electrical Inspection of Coatings (jeeping), either could be used to evaluate an individual’s knowledge, skill and ability to perform the task. Prevention of Atmospheric Corrosion is a module that addresses a number of coating related tasks such as atmospheric corrosion inspection, surface preparation, coating application and coating inspection. It contains twenty-five multiple choice questions that are administered after going through a training module. The training module contained many technical errors such as indicating that a Barchol Hardness Tester can be used to measure coating dry film thickness and a Tooke Gauge can be used to conduct Holiday Testing. A Barchol Hardness Tester measures coating hardness and a Tooke Gauge measure coating thickness through destructive testing. The training module also incorrectly referred to FBE Tape Coatings. FBE (fusion bonded epoxy) is a powder coating, not a tape wrap. Of the twenty-five questions, only a few pertained specifically to coating inspection and most were too simple to adequately evaluate an individual’s knowledge of the task such as “How is wet film thickness measured?” with the correct answer being “wet film thickness gauge.” The module Electrical Inspection of Coatings (jeeping) only applied to use of an electrical holiday tester. Both the examination and accompanying performance verification were inadequate for the task because they only addressed one type of inspection instrument and not all the other instruments and activities such as visual inspections that would be required to perform the task. The OQ plan accepted two evaluations from OQ Service Provider C, one of which was titled ” Inspection of Above and Below Ground Coatings.” The referenced evaluation was not adequate to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task because it was administered by oral examination. It did not verify that the individual was capable of correctly using any of the required coating inspection instrumentation. Covered Task 7.6, titled “Apply Coating Using Spray Application” The OQ plan accepted two examinations and accompanying performance verifications from OQ Service Provider B, Prevention of Atmospheric Corrosion and Application and Repair of External Coatings. Both examinations did not include any questions pertaining to spray application of coatings. Furthermore, the above-referenced performance verification, titled “Application and Repair of External Coatings” did not require the coating to be applied by spray 4 3. 4. application. It indicated the equipment and material needed to perform the evaluation were “Brush, Roller, Coating, Sandblasting equipment, Water blasting equipment and Hand tools.” Covered Task 32.0, titled “Observation of Excavation Activities” The OQ plan accepted OQ Service Provider A’s examination and performance verification, titled “Excavating and Backfilling.” The examination contained twenty multiple choice questions, few of which pertained to excavation activities. The performance verification required the individual to locate or simulate locating the pipeline, installing or simulating installation of a line marker, and inspecting and maintaining or simulating inspecting and maintaining a line marker, all of which are stand-alone covered tasks. The performance verification then required the individual to explain backfilling requirements and using company manuals or procedure books explain what trainees should do if they encounter any damage or defects while performing any of the above tasks. The performance verification did not require any excavation activities be performed or simulated. The OQ plan accepted OQ Service Provider B’s examination and performance verification, titled “Damage Prevention During Excavation Activities.” The training module and the accompanying examination made reference to performing activities in accordance with the operator’s policies and procedures. The training module contained a disclaimer that indicated using the material constituted acceptance that the material must be supplemented with company specific instruction of the policies and procedures of the company. All OQ Service Provider B’s material contained this disclaimer. Colonial’s OQ plan, however, did not contain any provisions for evaluating an individual’s knowledge of Colonial’s policies and procedures which made this service provider’s materials inadequate as a sole evaluation of an individual’s knowledge of this task. Likewise, the performance verification permitted actual performance of the task, simulation of the task, or oral assessment. Oral assessment is not acceptable because it does not evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task. An individual could be qualified for this task without ever having been at an excavation site or performing any excavation activities. The OQ plan accepts one evaluation from OQ Service Provider C, titled “Observation of Excavating and Backfilling.” This evaluation was to be done by oral assessment only. As described above, this is not acceptable because oral assessment does not evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task. An individual could be qualified for this task without ever having been at an excavation site or performing any excavation activities. Covered Task 39.0, titled “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance” The OQ plan accepts OQ Service Provider B’s examination and performance verification, titled “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance.” The training module that accompanies the examination indicates that “company personnel” will be present at the excavation site to take responsibility for certain functions of this task, such as 5 understanding soil types and soil compaction requirements. The above-referenced training module contains a section titled “Prerequisite Knowledge” that indicates “prior to backfilling a trench company personnel must be familiar with soil types, soil compaction methods and backfilling operations.” The training module also indicates “company personnel are responsible for compacting backfill.” One of the exam questions was “Who is ultimately responsible for determining whether backfill material is suitable for backfill around the pipe?” with the correct answer being “Company Personnel.” This training module and exam are not acceptable for the task since the material indicates that the individual being evaluated will not be responsible for understanding soil types or soil compaction requirements, “Company Personnel” will have that responsibility. Moreover, PHMSA’s review revealed that Colonial does not always require company personnel to be present during backfilling activities, which further nullifies the adequacy of the above- referenced examination and performance verification. As with the covered task referenced in Item 3 above, titled “Observation of Excavation Activities,” the performance verification from OQ Service Provider B could be done by oral assessment and the performance verification from OQ Service Provider C was only done by oral assessment, which is not adequate for the given task. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022 for a related series of violations. 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. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in Item 1 above and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $67,000. Proposed Compliance Order With respect to Item 2, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Colonial Pipeline Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be 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). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, 6 this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2018-5003 and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, James A. Urisko Director, Office of Pipeline Safety PHMSA Southern Region Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 7 PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Colonial with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to evaluation of individuals performing covered tasks, a. Review all written, electronic and oral examinations to assure they contain a sufficient number of questions with sufficient detail and complexity to establish an individual’s knowledge of the given covered task and a knowledge of Colonial’s procedures for performing the covered task. b. Review all performance verification materials to assure they provide for actual performance of the covered task in accordance with Colonial’s procedures. c. Replace, modify or supplement all evaluation material to assure the material will adequately establish an individual’s knowledge, skill and ability to perform a covered task properly and in accordance with Colonial procedures. Within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order, Colonial must submit to the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region, documentation showing satisfactory completion of Item 2, including, at a minimum, a list of all evaluations that were replaced, modified or supplemented. It is requested (not mandated) that Colonial maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to James A. Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 8 ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement` - SHA-256: `f2edb69c9e77f9cee19151b93bb486dec32c11c6ebcd75718459c5a41e53dd4d` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z - Exported: 2026-08-22T06:54:44.066Z - Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-220185003` ### Source metadata ```json { "cpf": "220185003", "operator": "COLONIAL PIPELINE CO", "region": "Southern", "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID ONSHORE", "caseStatus": "CLOSED", "citedSections": [ "195.505(b)", "195.505(d)" ], "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM", "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04", "attachmentCount": 10, "attachments": [ { "name": "220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S).pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Closure%20Letter_03132026_(16-154847S).pdf", "bytes": 168512, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Closure%20Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf", "bytes": 170730, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_Final Order_07132020.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Final%20Order_07132020.pdf", "bytes": 196536, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_Final Order_07132020_text.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Final%20Order_07132020_text.pdf", "bytes": 225717, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08282018.pdf", "bytes": 1610191, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018_text.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08282018_text.pdf", "bytes": 155166, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_09282018.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09282018.pdf", "bytes": 388045, "category": "party_submission" }, { "name": "220185003_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_10292019.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_10292019.pdf", "bytes": 480792, "category": "party_submission" }, { "name": "220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272019.pdf", "bytes": 223893, "category": "agency_document" }, { "name": "220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf", "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf", "bytes": 82777, "category": "agency_document" } ], "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 4, "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.", "jurisdiction": "US", "operatorName": "COLONIAL PIPELINE CO" } ```