COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF120175015_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09092019.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF120175015_Operator Post-Hearing Brief_03162018.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF120175015_Operator Pre-Hearing Brief_02122018.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF120175015_Operator Request for Hearing and Response to Notice_10022017.pdf#

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFJune 26, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jblount@colpipe.com Mr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC 1185 Sanctuary Parkway Suite 100 Alpharetta, Georgia 30009 Re: CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Dear Mr. Blount: Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition for Reconsideration. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this preceding. Service of the Decision by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Catherine Little, Esq., Troutman Sanders, LLP, catherine.little@troutman.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf, page 2U.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, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5015 ) ) ) Petitioner. ) ____________________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 15, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous and Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued an Amended Final Order1 to Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial or the Respondent), in connection with a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (NOPV) issued to the Respondent on July 25, 2017. The Amended Final Order found that Colonial violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.505(a) by failing to identify removal of a casing as a covered task in its Operator Qualification (OQ) program; assessed a civil penalty of $29,300; and imposed a Compliance Order requiring corrective action within sixty (60) days. On September 9, 2019, Colonial filed a Petition for Reconsideration2 of the Amended Final Order requesting that PHMSA reconsider its sole finding that removal of a casing is an OQ covered task. The Petitioner argued that the Amended Final Order was a novel interpretation of the OQ regulations and impermissibly expanded upon prior enforcement precedent and agency guidance. It also argued that, for reasons of public policy, its Petition should be granted. Colonial also requested that PHMSA stay the Compliance Order pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190.243(c), a request that the Associate Administrator granted on September 27, 2019. Background During an inspection of field activities in Woodbine, Maryland, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspectors observed Colonial contractors removing a casing from Line 04 to examine an anomaly on the pipeline. When asked for the qualification records of the contractors removing the casing, Colonial stated that it did not consider removal of a casing to be a covered task and therefore this activity was not included in its written operator qualification program. 1 Colonial Pipeline Company LLC, Amended Final Order, CPF No. 1-2017-5015 (August 15, 2019) (Amended Final Order). On August 5, 2019, a Final Order was issued that mistakenly omitted a paragraph. This error was corrected and the Amended Final Order, referenced above, was issued on August 15, 2019. 2 Petition for Reconsideration, dated September 9, 2019 (Petition).#

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 2 On July 25, 2017, PHMSA issued the NOPV, which alleged two violations, proposed a total civil penalty of $50,100, and proposed a compliance order with two requirements. Colonial filed a timely Request for Hearing and participated in a hearing on February 20, 2018. On August 5, 2019, PHMSA issued a Final Order3 that withdrew one item, upheld a finding of violation under 49 C.F.R. Part 195.505(a), assessed a reduced civil penalty of $29,300, and required corrective action to ensure that removal of a casing was identified as a covered task in Colonial’s written qualification program within 60 days. Colonial submitted a timely Petition for Reconsideration on September 9, 2019. In its Petition, Colonial objected to the Final Order on the following grounds: that (1) no express law, enforcement precedent, guidance or industry standard identifies removal of a casing as a covered task; and (2) this case was the first instance in which OPS had ever cited a pipeline operator for failure to identify removal of a casing as an OQ covered task. Standard of Review Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent is afforded the right to petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a Final Order. However, that right is not an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record.4 It is a venue for presenting the Associate Administrator with information that was not previously available or requesting that any errors in the Final Order be corrected. Requests for consideration of additional facts or arguments must be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered. Analysis In this case, the Notice alleged that “Colonial failed to have and follow a written qualification program that identified removing a casing as a covered task on January 27, 2017, in accordance with §195.505(a).”5 After reviewing the record in this case, I have determined that this case should have proceeded as a Notice of Amendment directing Colonial to amend its OQ plan to indicate casing removal as a covered task. This decision is based on the specific circumstances of this case and does not broadly prohibit OPS from pursuing a Notice of Probable Violation in similar cases. Therefore, I am granting the Petitioner’s requested relief by withdrawing the finding of violation in Item 1 of the August 15, 2019 Amended Final Order. The Compliance Order is also withdrawn. RELIEF GRANTED 3 This Final Order was amended on August 15, 2019. All references to the agency’s Final Order refer to the holding in the Amended Final Order. 4 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d). 5 Notice, at 2.#

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 3 Based on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the record, and for the reasons stated above, the relief sought in the Petition is granted and the finding of violation in Item 1 of the August 15, 2019 Amended Final Order is withdrawn. The Compliance Order is also withdrawn. This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. June 26, 2020 _____________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY July 25, 2017 John W. Somerhalder Interim President and Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC 1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30009 CPF 1-2017-5015 Dear Mr. Somerhalder: From January 23–26, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted a field verification inspection on field activities being performed by Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) in relation to its Integrity Management Program (IMP) in Woodbine, Maryland. The PHMSA representatives also inspected Colonial’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) procedures, IMP procedures, and Operator Qualification (OQ) records associated with the field activities. Pursuant to the Amended Corrective Action Order (ACAO) CPF No.: 1-2015-5018H, Colonial had to review prior in-line inspection tool run results and integrate all data to determine if any features with similar characteristics as the failed pipe are present elsewhere on its Line 04.1, 2 As a result of the requirements, Colonial discovered an anomaly on a section of Line 04 (on the carrier pipe inside a casing) located in Woodbine, Maryland, on March 23, 2016. Colonial’s IMP 1 On October 22, 2015, PHMSA, OPS issued an ACAO to Colonial requiring it to take certain actions with respect to the failure of its Line 04 pipeline on September 21, 2015 in Centreville, VA (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement). 2 Line 04 is a hazardous liquid pipeline that runs from the Greensboro Tank Farm in Greensboro, North Carolina to the Dorsey Tank Farm in Woodbine, Maryland.#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 2CPF 1-2017-5015 classified the anomaly as “4D-Anomalies that merit confirmation by visual inspection and in the opinion of the District and/or the Asset Integrity Team, do not represent immediate threats to pipe integrity.” Colonial scheduled to visually inspect the anomaly the week of January 23, 2017. During the week of January 23, 2017, PHMSA representatives observed contractors excavate a cased section of Line 04 crossing under Fredrick Road (Route 144) near the town of Lisbon, Maryland (Dig #8). This section of Line 04: 1. 2. 3. Is located in an area that could affect a high consequence area. 3 Is 32-inch diameter, 0.281 inch wall thickness, API-5L, and X52 pipe. Has a maximum operating pressure (MOP) of 649 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) PHMSA representatives also observed contractors prepare the 36-inch diameter casing on Line 04 for removal. The operating pressure ranged from 66 -74 psig at the time the casing was being removed. The contractors cut: 1. 2. 3. Longitudinally along each side of the casing, using a disc grinder and saw. Around to the top of the casing and then they removed the top half of the casing. Around to the bottom of the casing and then they removed the bottom half of the casing. 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. 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) Identify covered tasks; Colonial failed to have and follow a written qualification program that identified removing a casing as a covered task on January 26, 2017, in accordance with §195.505(a). On January 26, 2017, PHMSA representatives observed and photographed contractors cut and remove the casing on Line 04 to inspect an anomaly on the carrier pipe. During this inspection, a PHMSA representative requested to review its procedure for removing a casing. Colonial provided its Maintenance Procedure, CM-216, Rev.1 09/01/2016, Remove Casing (Procedure). The Procedure provided “instructions for removal of steel casing that is installed on section of line pipe crossing under roads.” The Procedure also stated that the “purpose of removal work may be to facilitate examination, repair, relocation or improvement of the line pipe section.” 3 High consequence area means (1) A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists; (2) A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined and delineated by the Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile; (3) An other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the Census Bureau, that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town, village, or other designated residential or commercial area; (4) An unusually sensitive area, as defined in §195.6. See 49 C.F.R. §195.450. 120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text Page 2 of 7#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 3CPF 1-2017-5015 The PHMSA representative also requested to review the OQ records for those contractors who removed the casing. Colonial was unable to produce OQ records. Colonial explained that it follows American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Pipeline Operator Qualification (API RP 1161) and that removal of casing is not a covered task. API RP 1161: 1. Is not incorporated by reference for a regulation in 49 C.F.R. Part 195. 2. Does not include an all-inclusive list of covered tasks. There could be additional tasks performed on pipeline systems that meet the definition of a covered task that are not listed in said document. Colonial is required to have a written qualification program that identifies and documents a covered task as defined in §195.501. Section 195.501 defines a covered task as an activity that: 1. 2. 3. 4. Is performed on a pipeline facility4 Is an operation and maintenance task Is performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195; and Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline (referred to as the “four-part test”). Based on the information above, removing a casing is considered to be a covered task because: 1. 2. 3. It is performed on a pipeline facility; It is done in the course of pipeline operation and maintenance activities; It is performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (e.g. §§195.402(a) and (c); 195.422; 195.452(b)(5) or 195.452(h)(3) which includes removing the casing on Line 04 to evaluate and possibly remediate the anomaly); and 4. If not properly removed it will affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. In an e-mail dated March 10, 2017, Colonial confirmed that it did not consider removing a casing to be a covered task with regards to Dig #8 on January 26, 2017. In another e-mail dated March 13, 2017, Colonial confirmed that its OQ program does not include “removing a casing” as a covered task and it is not a part of another covered task. Therefore, Colonial failed to have and follow a written qualification program that included the identification of removing a casing, which occurred at Dig #8 on January 26, 2017, as a covered task, in accordance with §195.505(a). 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; 4 The term “pipeline facility” means new and existing pipe, rights-of-way and any equipment, facility, or building used in the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide. See 49 C.F.R. §195.2 120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text Page 3 of 7#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 4CPF 1-2017-5015 Colonial failed to have and follow a written qualification program that ensured through evaluation that individuals who performed the covered task of removing a casing on January 26, 2017 were qualified in accordance with §195.505(b). As defined in §195.503, qualified means the individuals has been evaluated and can (a) performed the assigned covered tasks; and (b) recognize and react to abnormal operating condition. On January 26, 2017, the PHMSA representative observed and photographed contractors cut and remove a casing on Line 4 to inspect an anomaly on the carrier pipe. During this inspection, a PHMSA representative requested to review the OQ records for the contractors who removed the casing. Colonial was unable to produce OQ records showing that the contractors were qualified prior to or at the time of performing this covered task. Colonial explained that it follows American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Pipeline Operator Qualification (API RP 1161) and that removal of casing is not a covered task. API RP 1161: 1. Is not incorporated by reference for a regulation in 49 C.F.R. Part 195. 2. Does not include an all-inclusive list of covered tasks. There could be additional tasks performed on pipeline systems that meet the definition of a covered task that are not listed in said document. Colonial is required to have a written qualification program that identifies and documents a covered task as defined in §195.501. Section 195.501 defines a covered task as an activity that: 1. 2. 3. 4. Is performed on a pipeline facility5 Is an operation and maintenance task; Is performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195; and Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline (referred to as the “four-part test”). Based on the information above, removing a casing is considered to be a covered task because: 1. 2. 3. It is performed on a pipeline facility; It is done in the course of pipeline operation and maintenance activities; It is performed as a requirement of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (e.g. §§195.402(a) and (c); 195.422; 195.452(b)(5) or 195.452(h)(3) which includes removing the casing on Line 04 to evaluate and possibly remediate the anomaly); and 4. If not properly removed it will affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. In an e-mail dated February 27, 2017, the PHMSA representative requested that Colonial provide a copy of the OQ records for removing the casing at Dig # 8. Colonial was unable to provide records. In another e-mail dated March 13, 2017, Colonial stated its OQ Program does not include “removing a casing” as a covered task so it does not have OQ records for a task that it does not have in its OQ Program. Consequently, Colonial could not demonstrate that the contractors were qualified nor were directed and observed by an individual who was qualified for the covered task of removing a casing. 5 The term “pipeline facility” means new and existing pipe, rights-of-way and any equipment, facility, or building used in the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide. See 49 C.F.R. §195.2 120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text Page 4 of 7#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 5CPF 1-2017-5015 Therefore, Colonial failed to ensure through evaluation that individuals who performed the covered task of removing a casing at Dig #8 on January 26, 2017 were qualified in accordance with §195.505(b). Proposed Civil Penalty As of April 27, 2017, 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. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $50,100 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $50,100 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 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, 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. Please submit all correspondence in this matter to Robert Burrough, Acting Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1- 2017-xxxx on each document you submit, and whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office. 120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text Page 5 of 7#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 6CPF 1-2017-5015 Additionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response letter pertains solely to one CPF case number. Sincerely, Robert Burrough Acting Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text Page 6 of 7#

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf, page 7CPF 1-2017-5015 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. 4. With regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Colonial’s failure to have and follow a written qualification (OQ) program that identified removing a casing as a covered task, Colonial must ensure any and all activities associated with removing a casing on its pipeline facilities, which meet the four-part test, are identified as a covered task in its written OQ program as prescribed in §195.505(a).6 Colonial must submit the related amendment(s) from its covered task list. Colonial must also submit related documentation showing the method used to identify the covered task. With regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Colonial’s failure to have and follow a written qualification (OQ) program that ensured individuals were qualified to perform the covered task of removing a casing, Colonial must amend its written OQ program to ensure through evaluation that individuals who perform the covered task(s) in the amended cover task list from the above item will be qualified as prescribed in §195.505(b). Colonial must submit the related amendments from its written OQ program, which must include but not limited to: evaluation method and criteria; and evaluation for recognition and reaction to abnormal operating conditions. All submissions must be provided within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order to Robert Burrough, Acting Director, Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. 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 Robert Burrough, Acting Director, Eastern 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. 6 A covered task is defined as an activity that (1) is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) is an operation and maintenance task; (3) is performed as a requirement of Part 195; and (4) affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline (referred to as the “four-part test”). See 49 C.F.R. §195.501. 120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text Page 7 of 7#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAugust 5, 2019 Mr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC 1185 Sanctuary Parkway Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Re: CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Dear Mr. Blount: Enclosed is a Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $29,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC, 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, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Counsel for Colonial, 600 Peachtree Street N.E. Suite 3000, Atlanta, GA 30308 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 2U.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, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5015 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From January 23-26, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC (Colonial or Respondent), in Woodbine, Maryland. Colonial’s system extends from Texas to New York and consists of more than 5,500 miles of pipeline.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 25, 2017, 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 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $50,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Colonial responded to the Notice by letter dated October 2, 2017 (Response), contested all the allegations, and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on February 20, 2018 in West Trenton, NJ with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post- hearing statement for the record, by letter dated March 16, 2018 (Closing). FINDINGS OF VIOLATION Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states: § 195.505 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: 1 Colonial website, About Colonial, available at http://www.colpipe.com/home/about-colonial (last accessed December 18, 2018).#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 2 (a) Identify covered tasks; The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program, which must include provisions to identify covered tasks. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial’s written qualification program failed to identify removal of a casing as a covered task. “Cased” carrier pipes are routinely used by industry for pipelines that cross under highways and railroads. As noted above, OPS conducted both a field and office inspection of Colonial’s Line 04 in Woodbine, Maryland. During the field inspection, an OPS inspector observed Colonial contractors removing casing from Line 04 to directly examine an anomaly. The OPS inspector requested that Colonial provide its procedure for removal of a casing and the Operator Qualification (OQ) records for the relevant contractors. Colonial provided its procedure, but stated that it follows American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice of Pipeline Operator Qualification (API RP 1161) – and therefore does not consider removal of a casing to be a “covered task” requiring OQ. Subpart G of Part 195 (Qualification of Pipeline Personnel) defines a “covered task” and sets forth the requirements for the qualification of any individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline facility. For an activity to be considered a “covered task”, the task must meet four criteria, commonly known as the “four-part test.” The task must: (1) be performed on a pipeline facility; (2) be an operations or maintenance task; (3) be performed as a requirement of Part 195; and (4) affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. To determine whether Colonial violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), I must determine whether removal of a casing qualifies as a covered task under the four-part test. At the hearing, Colonial acknowledged that its written qualification program does not include removal of a casing as a covered task. However, the Respondent argued that removal of a casing should not qualify as a covered task because it fails to meet the third and fourth required elements of the four-part test.2 Colonial also argued that PHMSA has never considered this specific activity as a covered task or, to its knowledge, have other operators. By issuing this enforcement action, Colonial argues that PHMSA is “impermissibly expand[ing] the relevant plain language of the [OQ] rule,” thereby regulating through enforcement and violating fair notice, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Since Colonial has conceded to the application of parts one and two, I will turn to parts three and four, separately. As to part three, § 195.501(b)(3) requires that the activity be performed as a requirement of Part 195. Colonial argues that there is no enumerated requirement in Part 195 that speaks to removal of a casing, and therefore part 3 is unmet. In support of this argument, Colonial states that it knows of no other operator that identifies removal of a casing as a covered task or vendor that provides OQ training for this specific activity. Part four of the four-part test requires that the task “must affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline.” Colonial argued in its Closing that, in removing a casing, neither the operation nor the 2 “Colonial acknowledges that the activity of removing a casing meets parts 1 and 2 of the four-part test. Colonial does not agree, however, that removal of a casing meets parts 3 or 4.” Closing, at 2.#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 3 integrity of the pipeline itself is implicated, since neither the pipeline nor pipeline operations are affected. In my opinion, the pipeline would certainly be affected by removing a section of casing in an unsafe manner. In such a case, the operation or integrity of the carrier pipe would undoubtedly be called into question. Colonial already maintains a procedure for removal of a casing because improper execution could affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. This procedure is driven by the necessity of following a standard operating procedure for a commonplace activity. While maintenance of a procedure for a task is not dispositive of whether the task should be covered or “affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline,” it can certainly be considered as supportive evidence. Therefore, I consider the removal of a casing to be a task that “affect[s] the operation or integrity of the pipeline.” Accordingly, after considering all the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program for identifying removal of a casing as a covered task. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. 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: (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program, which must include provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial failed to ensure that the individuals who removed the casing on January 26, 2017, were qualified to perform that task. In its Closing, Colonial argued that the welders performing the task, though not qualified on “removal of a casing” were qualified under various other welding tasks and therefore it should not be penalized for failing to have OQ qualified contractors performing this task. OPS countered, in its Region Recommendation, that the welding qualifications held by the contractors “did not involve the same processes or considerations that would be involved when removing a casing.”3 I agree with OPS. As I discussed above, removal of a casing meets the requirements of the four-part test and should be considered a covered task (or part of another covered task). Therefore, there is no question that Colonial should ensure that individuals performing this task are qualified pursuant to a separate covered task “removal of a casing” or subsumed within another covered task. Nonetheless, I find that these violation items are “so closely connected that they overlap” and 3 “Region Recommendation, 8.#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 4 that a “single act occurred,” namely the failure to consider the removal of a casing as a covered task.4 OPS Enforcement Procedures afford inspectors latitude in determining whether to pursue a single or separate violation. However, in this case, I find the evidence in Items 1 and 2 to be so closely related that Item 2 should be withdrawn. In fact, the evidence for Violations 1 and 2 in the Violation report are identical.5 Accordingly, after considering the evidence and the legal issues presented, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn. 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.6 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 $50,100 for Item 1 cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) for failing to have and follow a written qualification program, which must include provisions to identify covered tasks. The Respondent presented a reasonable justification for its non-compliance. While ultimately unpersuasive, Colonial held a genuine belief that this specific activity did not meet the criteria of the four-part test. Therefore, I will afford it credit for good faith. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § § 195.505(a). 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 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. 4 “Use caution before citing the same code section or subsection for more than one Item in a Notice of Probable Violation letter because if the Items are based on the same evidence, it may result in a single violation being inappropriately alleged as multiple violations.” Pipeline Safety Enforcement Procedures, 26. 5 Violation Report, 6-7 and 14-15. 6 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts, 83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 5 Failure to pay the $29,300 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 The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §195.505. 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. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(a) (Item 1), Respondent must ensure that any and all activities associated with removing a casing on its pipeline facilities, which meet the four-part test, are identified as a covered task in its written OQ program, as prescribed in § 195.505(a). Colonial must submit the related amendment(s) from its covered task list. Colonial must also submit related documentation showing the method used to identify the covered task. This submission must be provided within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order to Director, Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(b) (Item 2), I have withdrawn Item 2 and the associated compliance item. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. It is requested 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#

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 6 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. August 5, 2019 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAugust 15, 2019 Mr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC 1185 Sanctuary Parkway Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Re: CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Dear Mr. Blount: Enclosed is an Amended Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $29,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC, 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, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Counsel for Colonial, 600 Peachtree Street N.E. Suite 3000, Atlanta, GA 30308 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 2U.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, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5015 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From January 23-26, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Colonial Pipeline Company, LLC (Colonial or Respondent), in Woodbine, Maryland. Colonial’s system extends from Texas to New York and consists of more than 5,500 miles of pipeline.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 25, 2017, 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 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $50,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Colonial responded to the Notice by letter dated October 2, 2017 (Response), contested all the allegations, and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on February 20, 2018 in West Trenton, NJ with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post- hearing statement for the record, by letter dated March 16, 2018 (Closing). FINDINGS OF VIOLATION Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states: § 195.505 Qualification program. Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: 1 Colonial website, About Colonial, available at http://www.colpipe.com/home/about-colonial (last accessed December 18, 2018).#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 2 (a) Identify covered tasks; The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program, which must include provisions to identify covered tasks. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial’s written qualification program failed to identify removal of a casing as a covered task. “Cased” carrier pipes are routinely used by industry for pipelines that cross under highways and railroads. As noted above, OPS conducted both a field and office inspection of Colonial’s Line 04 in Woodbine, Maryland. During the field inspection, an OPS inspector observed Colonial contractors removing casing from Line 04 to directly examine an anomaly. The OPS inspector requested that Colonial provide its procedure for removal of a casing and the Operator Qualification (OQ) records for the relevant contractors. Colonial provided its procedure, but stated that it follows American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice of Pipeline Operator Qualification (API RP 1161) – and therefore does not consider removal of a casing to be a “covered task” requiring OQ. Subpart G of Part 195 (Qualification of Pipeline Personnel) defines a “covered task” and sets forth the requirements for the qualification of any individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline facility. For an activity to be considered a “covered task”, the task must meet four criteria, commonly known as the “four-part test.” The task must: (1) be performed on a pipeline facility; (2) be an operations or maintenance task; (3) be performed as a requirement of Part 195; and (4) affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. To determine whether Colonial violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), I must determine whether removal of a casing qualifies as a covered task under the four-part test. At the hearing, Colonial acknowledged that its written qualification program does not include removal of a casing as a covered task. However, the Respondent argued that removal of a casing should not qualify as a covered task because it fails to meet the third and fourth required elements of the four-part test.2 Colonial also argued that PHMSA has never considered this specific activity as a covered task or, to its knowledge, have other operators. By issuing this enforcement action, Colonial argues that PHMSA is “impermissibly expand[ing] the relevant plain language of the [OQ] rule,” thereby regulating through enforcement and violating fair notice, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Since Colonial has conceded to the application of parts one and two, I will turn to parts three and four, separately. As to part three, § 195.501(b)(3) requires that the activity be performed as a requirement of Part 195. Colonial argues that there is no enumerated requirement in Part 195 that speaks to removal of a casing, and therefore part 3 is unmet. In support of this argument, Colonial states that it knows of no other operator that identifies removal of a casing as a covered task or vendor that provides OQ training for this specific activity. This argument is unpersuasive. As correctly pointed out by OPS in its Regional Recommendation, § 195.505 confers on Colonial the responsibility of identifying which tasks 2 “Colonial acknowledges that the activity of removing a casing meets parts 1 and 2 of the four-part test. Colonial does not agree, however, that removal of a casing meets parts 3 or 4.” Closing, at 2.#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 3 should be covered. To satisfy the third prong, it is enough that the task be so integral to meeting the requirements of the regulation that it must be considered as a separate covered task. The fact that Colonial maintains a specific procedure entitled “Remove Casing,” which painstakingly details how to affect removal “to facilitate examination, repair, relocation or improvement of the line pipe section,” is highly indicative of the fact that removal of a casing is an essential or integral part of the process for safely repairing the line, as required by § 195.422.3 The third prong is therefore met. Part four of the four-part test requires that the task “must affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline.” Colonial argued in its Closing that, in removing a casing, neither the operation nor the integrity of the pipeline itself is implicated, since neither the pipeline nor pipeline operations are affected. In my opinion, the pipeline would certainly be affected by removing a section of casing in an unsafe manner. In such a case, the operation or integrity of the carrier pipe would undoubtedly be called into question. Colonial already maintains a procedure for removal of a casing because improper execution could affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. This procedure is driven by the necessity of following a standard operating procedure for a commonplace activity. While maintenance of a procedure for a task is not dispositive of whether the task should be covered or “affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline,” it can certainly be considered as supportive evidence. Therefore, I consider the removal of a casing to be a task that “affect[s] the operation or integrity of the pipeline.” Accordingly, after considering all the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program for identifying removal of a casing as a covered task. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. 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: (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to have and follow a written qualification program, which must include provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial failed to ensure that the individuals who removed the casing on January 26, 2017, were qualified to perform that task. In its Closing, Colonial argued that the welders performing the task, though not qualified on “removal of a casing” were qualified under various other welding tasks and therefore it should 3 It is noteworthy that the regulated community has been on notice since the issuance of Final Order (3-2009-5022) that critical activities can be covered tasks even if they are not specifically called out by the regulations in Part 195.#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 4 not be penalized for failing to have OQ qualified contractors performing this task. OPS countered, in its Region Recommendation, that the welding qualifications held by the contractors “did not involve the same processes or considerations that would be involved when removing a casing.”4 I agree with OPS. As I discussed above, removal of a casing meets the requirements of the four-part test and should be considered a covered task (or part of another covered task). Therefore, there is no question that Colonial should ensure that individuals performing this task are qualified pursuant to a separate covered task “removal of a casing” or subsumed within another covered task. Nonetheless, I find that these violation items are “so closely connected that they overlap” and that a “single act occurred,” namely the failure to consider the removal of a casing as a covered task.5 OPS Enforcement Procedures afford inspectors latitude in determining whether to pursue a single or separate violation. However, in this case, I find the evidence in Items 1 and 2 to be so closely related that Item 2 should be withdrawn. In fact, the evidence for Violations 1 and 2 in the Violation report are identical.6 Accordingly, after considering the evidence and the legal issues presented, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn. 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.7 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 $50,100 for Item 1 cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) for failing to have and follow a written qualification program, which must include provisions to identify covered tasks. The Respondent presented a reasonable justification for its non-compliance. While ultimately unpersuasive, Colonial held a genuine belief that this specific 4 “Region Recommendation, 8. 5 “Use caution before citing the same code section or subsection for more than one Item in a Notice of Probable Violation letter because if the Items are based on the same evidence, it may result in a single violation being inappropriately alleged as multiple violations.” Pipeline Safety Enforcement Procedures, 26. 6 Violation Report, 6-7 and 14-15. 7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts, 83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 5 activity did not meet the criteria of the four-part test. Therefore, I will afford it credit for good faith. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § § 195.505(a). 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 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 $29,300 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 The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §195.505. 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. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(a) (Item 1), Respondent must ensure that any and all activities associated with removing a casing on its pipeline facilities, which meet the four-part test, are identified as a covered task in its written OQ program, as prescribed in § 195.505(a). Colonial must submit the related amendment(s) from its covered task list. Colonial must also submit related documentation showing the method used to identify the covered task. This submission must be provided within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order to Director, Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(b) (Item 2), I have withdrawn Item 2 and the associated compliance item. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs#

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 1-2017-5015 Page 6 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. August 15, 2019 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#