# COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120175015
- **title:** COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2017-07-25
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(a), 195.505(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175015.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175015.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175015
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120175015
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving COLONIAL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(a),  195.505(b). The case was opened on 2017-07-25 and is reported as closed as of 2020-06-26. Proposed civil penalty: $50,100. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Amended%20Final%20Order_08152019.pdf

120175015_Amended Final Order_08152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Amended%20Final%20Order_08152019_text.pdf

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06262020.pdf

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf

120175015_Final Order_08052019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Final%20Order_08052019.pdf

120175015_Final Order_08052019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Final%20Order_08052019_text.pdf

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07252017.pdf

120175015_NOPV PCP PCO_07252017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07252017_text.pdf

120175015_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09092019.pdf

120175015_Operator Post-Hearing Brief_03162018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Brief_03162018.pdf

120175015_Operator Pre-Hearing Brief_02122018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Brief_02122018.pdf

120175015_Operator Request for Hearing and Response to Notice_10022017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175015/120175015_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Response%20to%20Notice_10022017.pdf

120175015_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06262020_text.pdf

June 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



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, 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).



CPF 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.



CPF 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

NOTICE 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.



CPF 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



CPF 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



CPF 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



CPF 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



CPF 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



CPF 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

August 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



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, 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).



CPF 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.



CPF 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.



CPF 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).



CPF 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. §195.50
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 61303