DISTRIGAS OF MASSACHUSETTS LLC — Notice of Amendment

case documentOfficial PDF120193001M_Operator Post-Hearing Submission_03092020.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF120193001M_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_01102020.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF120193001M_Operator Request for Hearing and Request Preliminary Statement of Issues_10072019.pdf#

120193001M_Order Directing Amendment_08272020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAugust 27, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: anthony.scaraggi@na.engie.com Mr. Anthony Scaraggi Vice President of Operations Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC 18 Rover Street Everett, Massachusetts 02149 Re: CPF No. 1-2019-3001M Dear Mr. Scaraggi: Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the Notice of Amendment. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert Burroughs, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Susan Olenchuk, Counsel for the Respondent, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, sam@vnf.com Ms. Bryn S. Karaus, Counsel for Respondent, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, bsk@vnf.com Ms. Susan Bergles, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Corporation, susan.bergles@exeloncorp.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120193001M_Order Directing Amendment_08272020_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 ) Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2019-3001M ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT From June 11, 2019, through June 13, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC’s (Distrigas or Respondent),1 plans and procedures of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) Import Terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 17, 2019, a Notice of Amendment (NOA). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the NOA alleged certain inadequacies in the Respondent’s maintenance procedures and proposed requiring Distrigas to amend its procedures to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605 and § 193.2621(b). After requesting and receiving the case file, Distrigas responded to the NOA by letter dated October 7, 2019 (Response). Distrigas contested the allegations of inadequacy, provided a summary of its position, and requested a hearing. On October 29, 2019, the Region notified the Presiding Official to schedule a hearing. Prior to scheduling the hearing, the Region sent a closure letter to the operator on November 18, 2019, stating that the procedures submitted by the Respondent addressed the deficiencies identified in the NOA. On November 19, 2019, Distrigas responded to the Closure Letter by reiterating its request for a hearing, stating that the NOA should be fully withdrawn, and not closed. An informal hearing was held on January 21, 2020. WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF AMENDMENT Item 1: The NOA alleged that the Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 193.2605(b), which states: § 193.2605 Maintenance procedures. 1 Everett LNG Facility, formerly known as Distrigas, is a subsidiary of Exelon Generation Company, LLC.#

120193001M_Order Directing Amendment_08272020_text.pdf, page 3CPF 1-2019-3001M Page 2 (a) …. (b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written procedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required corrosion control. The procedures must include: (1) The details of the inspections or tests determined under paragraph (a) of this section and their frequency of performance; and (2) A description of other actions necessary to maintain the LNG plant according to the requirements of this subpart. The NOA alleged that Distrigas’ procedures for the maintenance of each component were inadequate. Specifically, the NOA alleged that Distrigas failed to include adequate guidance in its maintenance procedures on how to keep records for the testing of transfer hoses, as required by § 193.2621(b), which states that LNG hoses must be “visually inspected for damage or defects before each use.” The NOA alleged that Distrigas’ records and procedures omitted critical details. Upon reviewing the relevant procedures, the inspector noted several inadequacies in the record keeping and related procedures for the testing of transfer hoses required under § 193.2621(b). The NOA noted inadequacies in the following areas: 1. Record retention requirements; 2. Identification of what form/document, name/number that LNG truck loading transfers and transfer hose visual inspections are to be documented on; 3. A definition of "Operator", "Shipper, Per" and "Carrier, Per" from the Bill of Lading record fields; 4. 5. Who completes/signs off on the Bill of Lading records; and Details of the frequency of completing Bill of Lading records. During the hearing, the Region stated that, once it completed a thorough post inspection review of the operator’s original procedures, many of the NOA’s allegations were rendered moot (Items 1, 2, 4, and 5). However, it continues to maintain that certain terms used in Distrigas’ original procedure2 are inconsistent with the Bill of Lading (BOL) that Distrigas uses to record its compliance with § 193.2621(b). The Director argues that this sole incongruity is a legitimate and independent basis for the issuance of the NOA and that closure (and not withdrawal) is appropriate. The BOL uses the terms “Carrier” and “Shipper” while the original procedure simply referred to “Operator.” Following the inspection and in what it now argues was an attempt to assuage the OPS inspector’s concerns, Distrigas amended the original procedure. Distrigas’ updated (10/25/19) procedure now uses “Operator/Shipper” and includes the following note: “Operator/Shipper is also the shipper, per and the driver/carrier is also the carrier, per for all parts of this procedure and the uniform straight Bill of Lading.”3 The Respondent maintains that, while it amended the procedure, it was not admitting liability but rather assuaging the inspector’s concerns. The Region continues to maintain that the original procedure was so deficient as to render the issuance of the NOA necessary. The only remaining dispute solely concerns whether the lack of complete congruity between the 2 “Original procedure” refers to the procedure reviewed by OPS during the 2019 inspection. 3 Pipeline Safety Case File, at 15 (September 13, 2019)(on file with PHMSA).#

120193001M_Order Directing Amendment_08272020_text.pdf, page 4CPF 1-2019-3001M Page 3 original procedure and the BOL rise to the level of “inadequate to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility,” the required standard for issuance of an NOA. Part 190.206 and Section 3 of the Pipeline Enforcement procedures state the following: § 190.206 states: § 190.206 Amendment of plans or procedures. (a) A Regional Director begins a proceeding to determine whether an operator's plans or procedures required under parts 192, 193, 195, and 199 of this subchapter are inadequate to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility by issuing a notice of amendment. The notice will specify the alleged inadequacies and the proposed revisions of the plans or procedures and provide an opportunity to respond. The notice will allow the operator 30 days following receipt of the notice to submit written comments, revised procedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. (b) After considering all material presented in writing or at the hearing, if applicable, the Associate Administrator determines whether the plans or procedures are inadequate as alleged. The Associate Administrator issues an order directing amendment of the plans or procedures if they are inadequate, or withdraws the notice if they are not. In determining the adequacy of an operator's plans or procedures, the Associate Administrator may consider: (1) Relevant pipeline safety data; (2) Whether the plans or procedures are appropriate for the particular type of pipeline transportation or facility, and for the location of the facility; (3) The reasonableness of the plans or procedures; and (4) The extent to which the plans or procedures contribute to public safety. Section 3 of the Pipeline Enforcement Procedures states: A Notice of Amendment is used to notify an operator that its plans or procedures required under 49 Parts 192, 193, 195, and 199 are “inadequate” to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility. Deficiencies related to an operator’s plans or procedures that cause them to be “inadequate” may include those that: Repeat or paraphrase the regulatory text, instead of providing instructions for how to implement a regulatory requirement; Provide instructions for compliance in a vague, general or conflicting manner that offers little or no practical or meaningful guidance, and therefore increases the likelihood of error, confusion, or the exercise of poor judgment by the operator. A BOL ordinarily serves as evidence of a contract between a shipper and a carrier, and provides a receipt upon the exchange of goods, in this case LNG. Distrigas also uses its BOL to comply with the requirement that it visually inspected its transfer hoses. Simply put, whenever a#

120193001M_Order Directing Amendment_08272020_text.pdf, page 5CPF 1-2019-3001M Page 4 shipment of LNG leaves the facility, the shipper must affirm by signature that they have completed the required inspection. The original procedure stated that “Operator’s full signature on the Bill of Lading indicates that the truck load hoses have been visually inspected.” The BOL included Distrigas’ logo on the top left hand corner of the form, leaving no doubt that this is the operator’s form. At the bottom, there is a place for both the shipper and carrier’s signatures. Though the original procedure used the term “Operator” and not “Operator/Shipper” and the BOL uses the term “Shipper”, these basic terms are not so “vague, general or conflicting” that they were “inadequate to assure safe operation” of this facility. The LNG plant will always be the Operator (and shipper) and the carrier will always be the person picking up the LNG from the terminal. The personnel conducting the transaction and completing the BOL would be perfectly aware of whether they represented the shipper or the carrier, irrespective of whether the procedure used the term “shipper.” After reviewing the BOLs reviewed by the OPS inspector, I find the records and the original procedure to be clear and capable of providing meaningful guidance. The Respondent argues that it amended the original procedure to address the inspector’s concerns, and did not intend to admit that its original procedure was so lacking as to endanger the safe operation of its facility. Based upon my review of the original procedure, and in light of the fact that there were no missing or incomplete records, nor any documented instance where the procedure triggered confusion for the operator’s personnel, I conclude that the original procedure provided sufficiently clear instructions on how to implement the regulatory requirement (i.e., proper execution of the BOL following the visual inspection). Contrary to the Region’s determination, I further conclude that the required form was not “vague, general, or conflicting ... [such that it] offer[ed] little or no practical or meaningful guidance.” (Enforcement Procedures, Section 3). While the Region had legitimate concerns at the time of the inspection, it appears the substantive concerns were ultimately addressed by procedures that existed at the time of the inspection but had not yet been reviewed by the Region. The Notice of Amendment is withdrawn. August 27, 2020 ___________________________________ ______________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

120193001M_PHC Hearing Scheduled_12272019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDecember 27, 2019 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: Susan.Bergles@exeloncorp.com and Robert.Burrough@dot.gov Ms. Susan B. Bergles Assistant General Counsel Exelon Business Services Co., LLC 1310 Point Street, 8th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21231 Mr. Robert Burrough Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103 West Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Re: Notice of Hearing, Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC CPF No. 1-2019-3001M Dear Ms. Bergles and Mr. Burrough: In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Amendment issued to Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC, by the Office of Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced matter. The hearing will take place via teleconference on January 21, 2020, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by January 11, 2020), both parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and a list of attendees. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not submitted by this date may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 366-6139. Sincerely, Kristin Baldwin Presiding Official cc: Ms. Ajoke Agboola, Counsel for Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Bryn Karaus, Counsel for Distrigas of Massachusetts, Van Ness Feldman, LLP Ms. Susan A. Olenchuk, Counsel for Distrigas of Massachusetts, Van Ness Feldman, LLP#

120193001M_Operator Rejection to Closure Letter_11192019.pdf, page 1Official PDFRECEIVED NOV 2 0 2019 KH Exelon Susan B. Bergles Tacon Cmporation Assistant Cieneral (punsel 1310 Pont Street Sth Floor 4410) 470-1753 Baltimore, MD 21231 susan bergles exconcorp com November 19, 2019 By Email and Overnight Courier Ms. Kristin Baldwin Presiding Official Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE East Building Washington, DC 20590 Re: Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC, CPF 1-2019-3001M Objection to Closure Letter Dear Ms. Baldwin, Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC (Distrigas) objects to the letter issued by the Eastern Region Director on November 18, 2019 purporting to close this Notice of Amendment (NOA) Distrigas submitted in this proceeding on October 7, 2019. As such, the Closure Letter violates proceeding (Closure Letter). The Closure Letter nullifies the pending request for hearing that sections 190.206(a) and 190.211 of PHMSA's regulations' which grant Distrigas the right to a hearing before a Presiding Official and the opportunity to challenge the allegation contained in the NOA. The Closure Letter also exceeds the Region Director's authority because the proceeding is pending before the Presiding Official. As requested in the Presiding Official's email, dated November 12, 2019, offering dates on which to schedule the hearing, Distrigas requests that the Presiding Official disregard the Closure Letter and schedule the hearing for January 21 or 22, 2020. and in follow-up correspondence, the inspector raised questions regarding the adequacy of the The NOA arose from an on-site inspection on June 10-13, 2019. During that inspection March 3, 2018 version of Distrigas's Truck Loading Procedure, EMT-005.2 On June 28, 2019, in response to the inspector's request, Distrigas submitted a revised version of the Truck Loading Procedure, EMT-005, dated June 25, 2019, addressing the inspector's concerns. At no time during the inspection or in subsequent correspondence did the inspector raise any questions or concerns about Distrigas's Record Retention Procedure RC-003 or request that Distrigas provide a copy of it. 1 49 C.F.R. § 190.206(a) & 190.211 (2018). * Distrigas Everett Marine Terminal Operating Procedure Manual - Truck Loading EMT-005 (updated March 3, 2018). Page 1 of 3#

120193001M_Operator Rejection to Closure Letter_11192019.pdf, page 2On September 17, 2019, the Office of Pipeline Safety issued the NOA in CPF 1-2019- 3001M alleging that one of Distrigas's maintenance procedures was inadequate under 49 C.F.R § 193.2605. Specifically, PHMSA alleged that the June 25, 2019 revised version of Distrigas's Truck Loading Procedure EMT-005 failed to include adequate guidance on record keeping for the testing of transfer hoses under § 193.2621(b). As provided under 49 C.F.R. §$ 190.206(a) and 190.211, on October 7, 2019, Distrigas submitted a Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues in response to the NOA. On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, Distrigas and its counsel and the Eastern Region and its counsel held an informal meeting via conference call to discuss potential resolution of the allegation in the NOA. The parties did not resolve the NOA. During that discussion, the Eastern Region requested a copy of the Distrigas record retention procedure. Distrigas provided its Record Retention Procedure RC-003 on November 13. This procedure had been available to the Eastern Region inspectors during the inspection in June 2019, and it had not been amended since that time. On November 14, Distrigas received an email from Counsel for the Eastern Region stating that the region had reviewed Distrigas's updated procedure (i.e.. the June 25, 2019 the issues raised in the NOA have been addressed." Counsel for the Eastern Region stated that, revised Truck Loading Procedure) and Distrigas's record retention procedure, and "found that if Distrigas were willing to withdraw its request for a hearing. the Eastern Region would issue a closure letter. On Monday, November 18, 2018, Distrigas received the Closure Letter. The Closure Letter is not the same as withdrawing the NOA because the Closure Letter is equivalent to a finding that Distrigas's Truck Loading procedure was inadequate and required amendment in order to satisfy the NOA and pipeline safety regulations. That is not the case here where the Eastern Region found that the revised June 25, 2019 Truck Loading Procedure provided to the Eastern Region before the NOA was issued was adequate. The appropriate course of action is to withdraw the NOA because there was no basis for issuing the NOA in the first place. This is not a question of semantics. Distrigas is adversely affected by the Closure Letter because it gives the false impression in a public docket that Distrigas's June 25, 2019 Truck Loading Procedure was inadequate. The Closure Letter also constitutes a prior enforcement action in a potential future proceeding. Withdrawing the NOA, by contrast, properly recognizes that the Truck Loading Procedure was adequate prior to the issuance of the NOA. In its request for a hearing, Distrigas maintains that OPS failed to meet its burden of proving that its Truck Loading Procedure is inadequate. The Closure Letter nullifies that request for hearing and violates sections 190.206(a) and 190.211 which provide respondents the right to challenge an NOA in a hearing. Distrigas filed that request for hearing and the case is now pending before the Presiding Official. The Eastern Region lacks authority to issue the Closure Letter and thereby deprive Distrigas of its right a hearing. Page 2 of 3#

120193001M_Operator Rejection to Closure Letter_11192019.pdf, page 3Distrigas requests that the Presiding Official disregard the Closure Letter as an altra vires action. In response to the Presiding Official's November 12, 2019 email containing suggested 2020. dates for the hearing, Distrigas respectfully requests that the hearing be held on January 21 or 22, Thank you for your attention on this matter. Sincerely. desanD Dex Susan B. Bergles Assistant General Counsel Exelon Business Services Co., LLC CC: Ajoke Agboola, Esq., Counsel for the Eastern Region, OPS Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA Edward Gleason, General Manager, Northeast Region, Exelon Generation Susan Stritter, Sr. Compliance Specialist, Exelon Generation LLC Susan A. Olenchuk, Counsel for Respondent, Van Ness Feldman, LLP Bryn Karaus, Counsel for Respondent, Van Ness Feldman, LLP Page 3 of 3#

120193001M_Notice of Amendment_09172019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF AMENDMENT OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY September 17, 2019 Frank Katulak President & Chief Operating Officer Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC 18 Rover Street Everett, MA 02149 CPF 1-2019-3001M Dear Mr. Katulak: On June 11 to June 13, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC (Distrigas)’s LNG Terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacy found within Distrigas’ plans or procedures, as described below: 1. § 193.2605 Maintenance procedures. (a) ... (b) Each operator shall follow one or more manuals of written procedures for the maintenance of each component, including any required corrosion control. The procedures must include: (1) The details of the inspections or tests determined under paragraph (a) of this section and their frequency of performance; and (2) A description of other actions necessary to maintain the LNG plant according to the requirements of this subpart. Distrigas’ procedures for the maintenance of each component were inadequate. Specifically, Distrigas’ Everett Marine Terminal Operating Procedure Manual – Truck Loading EMT-05,#

120193001M_Notice of Amendment_09172019_text.pdf, page 2updated 3/3/18 (Procedure) failed to include adequate guidance on record keeping for the testing of transfer hoses required by § 193.2621(b). Section 193.2621(b) states: “Hoses used in LNG or flammable refrigerant transfer systems must be: … (b) Visually inspected for damage or defects before each use.” During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Distrigas’ Procedure and associated 2018 Records for the testing of transfer hoses before each LNG truck loading transfer, identified by Distrigas as its Uniform Straight Bill of Lading document. The Records indicated many missing content fields including, but not limited to: “load number”, “out time”, “carrier per”, “hot tank”, “trailer plate”, “state.” The Procedure failed to include sufficient guidance on how to record the information on the Bill of Lading record. When the PHMSA inspector asked Distrigas how and when this data is to be completed, Distrigas provided the Procedure. The Procedure failed to provide details such as:  Record retention requirements  Identification of what form/document, name/number that LNG truck loading transfers and transfer hose visual inspections are to be documented on  A definition of “Operator”, “Shipper, Per” and “Carrier, Per” from the Bill of Lading record fields  Who completes/signs off on the Bill of Lading records  Details of the frequency of completing Bill of Lading records Subsequent to the PHMSA inspection, Distrigas provided an updated version of the Procedure, revised 6/25/19. However, this revised procedure failed to address the recordkeeping details listed above. Therefore, Distrigas failed to include adequate guidance in its maintenance procedures on record keeping for its testing of transfer hoses required by § 193.2621(b). Response to this Notice This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment 120193001M_Notice of Amendment_09172019_text Page 2 of 3#

120193001M_Notice of Amendment_09172019_text.pdf, page 3redacted 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, revised procedures, or a request for a hearing under §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 an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed. It is requested (not mandated) that Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Robert Burrough, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 300, West Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2019-3001M 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 USB flash drive accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office. 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 Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings 120193001M_Notice of Amendment_09172019_text Page 3 of 3#

120193001M_Closure Letter_11182019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY November 18, 2019 Frank Katulak President & Chief Operating Officer Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC 18 Rover Street Everett, MA 02149 CPF 1-2019-3001M Dear Mr. Katulak: From June 11 to June 13, 2019, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on- site pipeline safety inspection of Distrigas of Massachusetts, LLC (Distrigas) procedures in Everett, Massachusetts. On June 13, 2019, Distrigas was notified of apparent inadequacies found within its procedures during the inspection exit interview. Distrigas provided updated procedures on June 25, 2019. PHMSA issued a Notice of Amendment on September 17, 2019, which proposed amendment of your procedures. Distrigas provided its Record Retention procedures on November 13, 2019. My staff reviewed the amended procedures submitted on June 25, 2019 and the Record Retention procedures submitted on November 13, 2019, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment have been corrected. This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert Burrough Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#