{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220185003","title":"COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-08-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(b), 195.505(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220185003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220185003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220185003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220185003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLONIAL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(b),  195.505(d). The case was opened on 2018-08-28 and is reported as closed as of 2026-03-13. Proposed civil penalty: $67,000. Assessed civil penalty: $61,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Closure%20Letter_03132026_(16-154847S).pdf\n\n220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Closure%20Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf\n\n220185003_Final Order_07132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Final%20Order_07132020.pdf\n\n220185003_Final Order_07132020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Final%20Order_07132020_text.pdf\n\n220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08282018.pdf\n\n220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08282018_text.pdf\n\n220185003_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_09282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09282018.pdf\n\n220185003_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_10292019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_10292019.pdf\n\n220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272019.pdf\n\n220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220185003/220185003_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf\n\n220185003_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272019_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 27, 2019\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: Catherine.Little@troutman.com and\nJames.Urisko@dot.gov\nMs. Catherine Little\nCounsel for Colonial Pipeline Company\nTroutman Sanders\n600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000\nAtlanta, Georgia 30308\nMr. James Urisko\nDirector, Southern Region, PHMSA\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n233 Peachtree Street, Suite 600\nAtlanta, Georgia 30303\nRe: Notice of Hearing, Colonial Pipeline Company\nCPF No. 2-2018-5003\nDear Ms. Little and Mr. Urisko:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Probable\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. The hearing has been scheduled to take place on November 1, 2019, beginning\nat 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.\nThe hearing will be at the PHMSA Southern Region office, 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, GA\n30303. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo identification to security\npersonnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is (404) 832-1140.\nBoth parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at least 10\ncalendar days prior to the hearing (October 22, 2019), along with a list of attendees, and the names of any\nwitnesses who may testify. You may provide this information electronically. If you have any questions,\nplease contact me at (202) 366-6139 or at kristin.baldwin@dot.gov.\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\nSincerely,\nKristin Baldwin\nPresiding Official\ncc (email): Mr. Forrest Pittman, Counsel, Southern Region, OPS\n\n220185003_Final Order_07132020_text.pdf\n\nJuly 13, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jblount@colpipe.com\nMr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr.\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100\nAlpharetta, Georgia 30009\nRe: CPF No. 2-2018-5003\nDear Mr. Blount:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $61,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken\nby Colonial Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective\nupon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Troutman Sanders, LLP, catherine.little@troutman.com\nMs. Anne M. Cook, Esq., Troutman Sanders, LLP, annie.cook@troutman.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nColonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 2-2018-5003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBeginning November 30, 2016, following receipt of a November 2, 2016 Congressional letter\nrequesting an investigation of Colonial Pipeline Company’s (Colonial or Respondent)\nmaintenance and oversight activities and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Colonial’s facilities and records in\nAlpharetta, Georgia. Colonial's system extends from Texas to New York and consists of more\nthan 5,500 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Colonial had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) and (d) and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $67,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain actions to correct the alleged violations.\nColonial responded to the Notice by letter dated September 28, 2018 (Response). Colonial\ncontested one of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, sought\nmitigation or elimination of the proposed penalty, and requested a hearing. Colonial also\nrequested a settlement meeting with the Southern Region.\nAs a result of subsequent discussions with the Region, Respondent withdrew its request for a\nhearing by letter dated October 29, 2019, and the Region recommended certain modifications to\nthe proposed compliance terms.2 I have reviewed the record and hereby issue this Final Order\nwithout further proceedings.\n1 Colonial website, About Colonial, available at https://www.colpipe.com/about-us/our-company/system-map (last\naccessed June 12, 2020).\n2 Respondent’s Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, at 1 (October 29, 2019) (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2018-5003\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . .\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual’s performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as\ndefined in Part 195;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d) by failing to evaluate\ncertain individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed to several accidents, as\ndefined in Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Colonial failed to document, for three\nreportable accidents, whether the performance of a covered task was involved, whether\nperformance of a covered task contributed to the accident, or which Colonial personnel\nperformed any covered tasks during the activities leading to each accident. The Notice further\nalleged that Colonial was unable to confirm that it had completed any documentation indicating\nthat the individuals’ qualifications were suspended, as required by Appendix D, Disqualification\nand Suspension, of the company’s written Operator Qualification (OQ) program; that such\nAppendix D information had been forwarded to the company’s OQ Coordinator; or that it had\nnotified Colonial’s Technical Training Department, as required by Section 12 of the company’s\nOQ program. These three incidents were documented on PHMSA Form 7000-1 (PHMSA\nAccident Report) and have the following report numbers and submittal dates: (1) No. 20140287-\n20157, dated August 11, 2014; (2) No. 2015286-20902, dated August 13, 2015; and (3) No.\n20150326-22637,3 dated September 12, 2015.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Respondent, however, did request a\nreduction in the proposed civil penalty based on an additional explanation provided to clarify the\nfacts at issue. This request for reduction is discussed in greater detail below. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d) by\nfailing to evaluate individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed to accidents, as\ndefined in Part 195.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\n3 The Notice incorrectly lists the last five digits of the report number as 20739.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2018-5003\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that individuals performing certain covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that evaluation material from three service providers that Colonial’s OQ program\nrelied upon failed to evaluate an individual’s knowledge, skill, and ability to perform a given\ncovered task. The Notice alleged that the evaluation methods used to determine an individual’s\nknowledge of the task, as well as performance verifications to evaluate an individual’s skill and\nability to perform the task, for four specific covered tasks were inadequate to constitute a valid\nevaluation process. These included Covered Task 7.6, “Apply Coating Using Spray\nApplication”; Covered Task 7.7, “Perform Coating Inspection”; Covered Task 32.0,\n“Observation of Excavation Activities”; and Covered Task 39.0, “Backfilling a Trench\nFollowing Maintenance.”\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Respondent, however, requested a\nmodification of the proposed compliance order to reflect the efforts Colonial had already taken to\ncomply with the proposed terms. These modified terms, which Southern Region has\nrecommended for approval through its Region Recommendation,4 are reflected in the\nCompliance Order below. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that\nindividuals performing covered tasks were qualified.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.5 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $67,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $67,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§195.505(d), for failing to evaluate individuals whose performance of a covered task contributed\nto three separate accidents, as defined in Part 195. In its Response, Colonial provided an\nexplanation of the facts at issue, arguing for a reduction in the proposed penalty. First, Colonial\ncontended that the work being performed at the time of one of the accidents or leading up to the\n4 PHMSA Region Recommendation, dated November 16, 2019 (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2018-5003\nPage 4\naccident did not include the performance of a covered task. Specifically, Colonial claimed that a\ncovered task was not being performed at the time of or leading up to the accident documented on\nPHMSA Accident Report No. 20150326-22637,6 dated September 12, 2015.7 Colonial stated\nthat the accident was caused by a mini-excavator striking a thread-o-ring fitting that was\nconnected to one of Colonial’s mainline pipelines at its Kannapolis facility in North Carolina.\nColonial further explained that the excavator was delivering backfill materials to other\nindividuals who were performing Covered Task No. 39, “Backfilling a Trench Following\nMaintenance.” Colonial, therefore, contended that the individual operating the mini-excavator\nwas not actively engaged in excavating or backfilling activities as described in Covered Task No.\n39.\nThe Notice alleged that all three accidents occurred while performing excavation and backfilling\nactivities, which require both Covered Task No. 39, as well as Covered Task No. 32,\n“Observation of Excavation Activities.” Neither the Notice, the Pipeline Safety Violation\nReport, nor the Region Recommendation provided more detailed information on the specific\ncovered tasks that were allegedly being performed at the time of or leading up to each of the\nthree accidents. Instead, the Region only offered a general application of two covered tasks to all\nthree accidents without further explanation. Therefore, based on the clarification of the facts\nprovided by Colonial, and the lack of evidence in the record refuting these facts, including\nPHMSA Accident Report No. 20150326-22637, I find that a reduction in the proposed penalty is\nwarranted and that the number of instances of violation under “Part E6 – Gravity” of the\nViolation Report should be reduced from three to two.8\nNext, Colonial contended that it had properly assessed whether the performance of a covered\ntask could have contributed to the accidents and whether an individual’s OQ should be\nsuspended or withdrawn for each of the accidents. However, Colonial also conceded that there\nwas no documentation that such assessments ever occurred. I find that this violation is not\nsimply a recordkeeping violation, but, instead, an activity violation based on the lack of any\ndocumentation demonstrating that Respondent actually performed the assessments as required by\n§ 195.505(d) and Colonial’s own OQ procedures. Moreover, Colonial failed to provide any\njustification for its failure to either follow its OQ procedures or comply with a regulation that is\nclearly applicable. Therefore, I find no reason to reduce the penalty under the criteria of nature,\nculpability, or good faith.\nBased upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $61,100 for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\n6 The Response incorrectly lists the last five digits of the report number as 20739.\n7 According to Part H – Narrative Description of the Accident on PHMSA Form 7000-1, “[o]n August 13, 2015 at\napproximately 11:00am, a contract crew backfilling the L2 Station Discharge Valve struck a ¾ inch valve attached\nto the top of Line 2” (on file with PHMSA).\n8 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (August 28, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 19.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2018-5003\nPage 5\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $61,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to\nItem 2 in the Notice for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(d). In its Recommendation, the\nSouthern Region supported modification of the proposed compliance order in order to more\nclosely reflect the efforts that Colonial has already taken to comply with the proposed terms.9\nAccordingly, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions, pursuant to the authority of\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.505(d) (Item 2), Respondent must:\na. Perform a gap analysis of Colonial’s procedures versus API RP 1161,\nRecommended Practice for Pipeline Operator Qualification, within 15\nmonths of issuance of the Final Order. Colonial must develop protocols\nfor the gap analysis, and provide a gap analysis report and procedure for\nmanaging, documenting, and addressing communication on identified\ngaps.\nb. Develop audit protocols and process for OQ Service Provider Programs\nrelative to API RP 1161 within three months of issuance of the Final\nOrder.\nc. Conduct audits of vendor programs relative to API RP 1161 and provide\nthe audit reports, both individual ones for each covered task and\nconsolidated, no later than 60 months after the issuance of the Final Order.\nd. Provide quarterly process reports on Colonial’s actions and results until\nthis case is closed.\n9 Withdrawal of Request for Hearing (October 29, 2019), at 1 (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2018-5003\nPage 6\n2. Colonial must submit to Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA, documentation demonstrating compliance with and/or completion of the\ncorrective actions listed above in Item 1(a) through 1(d).\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJuly 13, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220185003_Closure Letter_03132026_(16-154847S)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n230 Peachtree Street N.W.\nSuite 2100\nAtlanta, GA 30303\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: MLittle@colpipe.com; QFrazier@colpipe.com\nMarch 13, 2026\nMelanie Little\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100\nAlpharetta, GA 30009\nRe: CPF No. 2-2018-5003\nDear Ms. Little:\nOn July 13, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Colonial Pipeline Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\ncivil penalty and an Order to comply with 49 CFR 195.505(b).\nPHMSA has confirmed receipt of payment of the civil penalty as of July 21, 2020. Further,\nPHMSA has confirmed satisfactory completion of all required elements of the Compliance\nOrder. Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is required. Thank you for\nyour cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCC: James Urisko, Director, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety, Southern Region\nQuintin Frazier, Director, Pipeline Compliance, Colonial Pipeline\nQFrazier@colpipe.com\n\n220185003_NOPV PCP PCO_08282018_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 28, 2018\nMr. Joseph A. Blount, Jr.\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1185 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 100\nAlpharetta, GA 30009-4765\nCPF 2-2018-5003\nDear Mr. Blount:\nBeginning November 30, 2016, following the November 2, 2016, Congressional letter requesting\ninvestigation in to Colonial Pipeline Company’s maintenance and oversight activities, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected\nColonial Pipeline Company’s (Colonial) Operator Qualification (OQ) Program in\nAlpharetta, Georgia.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Colonial has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. §195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a)…\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual’s\nperformance of a covered task contributed to an accident as defined in Part 195…\nColonial failed to comply with the regulation because it did not evaluate individuals whose\nperformance of a covered task contributed to accidents, as required in Part 195.\n\n\n\nSection 12 of Colonial’s Operator Qualification (OQ) Program, titled “Post Accident\nInvestigations,” contained requirements for post-accident review in the event of a pipeline\naccident. Specifically, Section 12 required Colonial to determine if a covered task was being\nperformed at the time of, or leading up to, the accident, and whether performance of a\ncovered task contributed to the accident. This review was to be performed in accordance\nwith Corporate Procedure 16, titled “Incident Analysis and Near Miss Process,” using\nColonial’s Learning from Experience and Analysis Process (LEAP).\nSection 12 further required that Colonial determine whether performance of a covered task\nmay have contributed to the accident and, if so, “all personnel who were performing the\nCovered Tasks will have their qualifications immediately suspended until it can be\ndetermined whether his/her action contributed to the accident.” Section 12 further indicates\nthat such suspensions are to be documented using Appendix D of Colonial’s OQ Program,\ntitled “Disqualification and Suspension.” Moreover, Section 12 specifies that if an\nindividual’s qualifications are suspended or revoked, the Appendix D documentation is to be\nforwarded to Colonial’s OQ Coordinator, who in turn is to notify the Technical Training\nDepartment designee responsible for updating Covered Task qualification records in\nColonial’s Learning Management System.\nDuring its review, PHMSA identified three reportable accidents on the Colonial system\nwhere performance of a covered task caused or contributed to the accident. These accidents\nwere documented on PHMSA Form 7000-1, titled “Accident Report-Hazardous Liquid\nPipeline Systems,” and submitted electronically via the Online Data Entry System (ODES).\nThe specific report numbers and submittal dates are as follows:\n No. 20140287-20157 Date 08/11/2014\n No. 20150286-20902 Date 08/13/2015\n No. 20150326-20738 Date 09/12/2015\nAll three accidents occurred while performing excavation or backfilling activities. Per\nColonial’s OQ program, these activities required Covered Tasks 32.0 and 39.0, titled\n“Observation of Excavation Activities” and “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance,”\nrespectively.\nColonial documented its response to each of the above-referenced reportable accidents in an\nIncident Analysis Report. Each Incident Analysis Report documents actions taken by\nColonial in response to each respective accident. None of the Incident Analysis Reports\ndocumented that performance of a covered task was involved, whether performance of a\ncovered task contributed to the accident, or which individuals performed any covered tasks\nduring the activities leading to each accident. Furthermore, Colonial personnel were unable\nto confirm any Appendix D “Disqualification or Suspension” documentation had been\ncompleted, that any information was forwarded to the OQ Coordinator, or that Colonial’s\nTechnical Training Department was notified, as required by Section 12 of Colonial’s\nOperator Qualification Program. Consequently, Colonial was unable to demonstrate its\ncompliance with § 195.505(d).\n2\n\n\n\n2. §195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a)…\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified…\nColonial failed to comply with the regulation because it did not ensure through evaluation\nthat individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.\nAt the time of PHMSA’s inspection, Colonial’s OQ program relied on three OQ service\nproviders to provide evaluation material, herein referred to as OQ Service Provider A, B\nand C. PHMSA’s review identified several instances where the evaluation material across\nthe three service providers was inadequate to evaluate an individual’s knowledge, skill and\nability to perform a given covered task.\nAll three service providers relied on a written, electronic, or verbal examination to evaluate\nan individual’s knowledge of the covered task, as well as a performance verification to\nevaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the covered task. Evaluation materials\nwere identified that were not applicable to the given covered task or lacked a sufficient\nnumber of questions, or questions of sufficient detail, to evaluate an individual’s knowledge\nof the task. Furthermore, performance verification material was identified that did not\nrequire performance of the task. Moreover, at least one of Colonial’s service providers’\nevaluation materials required knowledge of Colonial procedures and policies despite the fact\nthat Colonial’s OQ program itself did not contain provisions for assuring knowledge of these\nprocedures and policies. Consequently, the above-referenced evaluation materials were not\ndeveloped and tailored to specific provisions and operational parameters of Colonial’s OQ\nprogram.\nThe following examples detail four Covered Tasks with evaluation methods for determining\nan individual’s knowledge of the task, as well as performance verification to evaluate an\nindividual’s skill and ability to perform the task, that were found to be inadequate:\n1. Covered Task 7.7, titled “Perform Coating Inspection”\nColonial’s OQ Program accepted two examinations from OQ Service Provider A, one of\nwhich was titled Aboveground Pipe Coating and Inspection. This examination could be\nused to evaluate an individual’s knowledge of the task. PHMSA’s review of the above-\nreferenced examination determined that it was inadequate for determining an\nindividual’s knowledge of the task. Of the 20 multiple choice questions included in the\nevaluation, no questions examined the individual’s knowledge of evaluating surface\npreparation, measuring coating thickness, visually inspecting coatings or conducting\nholiday testing. Understanding of each of these aspects of a coating inspection is\nfundamental to demonstrating knowledge of the task.\nThe OQ plan accepted two performance verifications from OQ Service Provider A,\nVisual Inspection for Atmospheric Coating and Use Coating Inspection Tools, either of\nwhich could be used to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task. The\n3\n\n\n\n2. performance verification Visual Inspection for Atmospheric Coating was not applicable\nto performing visual coating inspections. It was intended for atmospheric corrosion\ninspections and did not address the use of any type of coating inspection equipment. The\nperformance verification Use Coating Inspection Tools was inadequate to the task. It\nrequired the individual to conduct wet film and dry film thickness measurements,\nelectronic holiday detection test and adhesion tests but did not require evaluation of\nsurface preparation or measurement of surface temperature, ambient temperature, dew\npoint or relative humidity all of which are required, and fundamental, to perform the task.\nThe OQ plan accepted two examinations and the accompanying performance\nverifications from OQ Service Provider B, Prevention of Atmospheric Corrosion and\nElectrical Inspection of Coatings (jeeping), either could be used to evaluate an\nindividual’s knowledge, skill and ability to perform the task. Prevention of Atmospheric\nCorrosion is a module that addresses a number of coating related tasks such as\natmospheric corrosion inspection, surface preparation, coating application and coating\ninspection. It contains twenty-five multiple choice questions that are administered after\ngoing through a training module. The training module contained many technical errors\nsuch as indicating that a Barchol Hardness Tester can be used to measure coating dry film\nthickness and a Tooke Gauge can be used to conduct Holiday Testing. A Barchol\nHardness Tester measures coating hardness and a Tooke Gauge measure coating\nthickness through destructive testing. The training module also incorrectly referred to\nFBE Tape Coatings. FBE (fusion bonded epoxy) is a powder coating, not a tape wrap. Of\nthe twenty-five questions, only a few pertained specifically to coating inspection and\nmost were too simple to adequately evaluate an individual’s knowledge of the task such\nas “How is wet film thickness measured?” with the correct answer being “wet film\nthickness gauge.”\nThe module Electrical Inspection of Coatings (jeeping) only applied to use of an\nelectrical holiday tester. Both the examination and accompanying performance\nverification were inadequate for the task because they only addressed one type of\ninspection instrument and not all the other instruments and activities such as visual\ninspections that would be required to perform the task.\nThe OQ plan accepted two evaluations from OQ Service Provider C, one of which was\ntitled ” Inspection of Above and Below Ground Coatings.” The referenced evaluation\nwas not adequate to evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task because\nit was administered by oral examination. It did not verify that the individual was capable\nof correctly using any of the required coating inspection instrumentation.\nCovered Task 7.6, titled “Apply Coating Using Spray Application”\nThe OQ plan accepted two examinations and accompanying performance verifications\nfrom OQ Service Provider B, Prevention of Atmospheric Corrosion and Application and\nRepair of External Coatings. Both examinations did not include any questions pertaining\nto spray application of coatings.\nFurthermore, the above-referenced performance verification, titled “Application and\nRepair of External Coatings” did not require the coating to be applied by spray\n4\n\n\n\n3. 4. application. It indicated the equipment and material needed to perform the evaluation\nwere “Brush, Roller, Coating, Sandblasting equipment, Water blasting equipment and\nHand tools.”\nCovered Task 32.0, titled “Observation of Excavation Activities”\nThe OQ plan accepted OQ Service Provider A’s examination and performance\nverification, titled “Excavating and Backfilling.” The examination contained twenty\nmultiple choice questions, few of which pertained to excavation activities. The\nperformance verification required the individual to locate or simulate locating the\npipeline, installing or simulating installation of a line marker, and inspecting and\nmaintaining or simulating inspecting and maintaining a line marker, all of which are\nstand-alone covered tasks. The performance verification then required the individual to\nexplain backfilling requirements and using company manuals or procedure books\nexplain what trainees should do if they encounter any damage or defects while\nperforming any of the above tasks. The performance verification did not require any\nexcavation activities be performed or simulated.\nThe OQ plan accepted OQ Service Provider B’s examination and performance\nverification, titled “Damage Prevention During Excavation Activities.” The training module\nand the accompanying examination made reference to performing activities in accordance\nwith the operator’s policies and procedures. The training module contained a disclaimer that\nindicated using the material constituted acceptance that the material must be\nsupplemented with company specific instruction of the policies and procedures of the\ncompany. All OQ Service Provider B’s material contained this disclaimer. Colonial’s\nOQ plan, however, did not contain any provisions for evaluating an individual’s\nknowledge of Colonial’s policies and procedures which made this service provider’s\nmaterials inadequate as a sole evaluation of an individual’s knowledge of this task.\nLikewise, the performance verification permitted actual performance of the task,\nsimulation of the task, or oral assessment. Oral assessment is not acceptable because it\ndoes not evaluate an individual’s skill and ability to perform the task. An individual could\nbe qualified for this task without ever having been at an excavation site or performing\nany excavation activities.\nThe OQ plan accepts one evaluation from OQ Service Provider C, titled “Observation of\nExcavating and Backfilling.” This evaluation was to be done by oral assessment only. As\ndescribed above, this is not acceptable because oral assessment does not evaluate an\nindividual’s skill and ability to perform the task. An individual could be qualified for this\ntask without ever having been at an excavation site or performing any excavation\nactivities.\nCovered Task 39.0, titled “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance”\nThe OQ plan accepts OQ Service Provider B’s examination and performance verification,\ntitled “Backfilling a Trench Following Maintenance.” The training module that\naccompanies the examination indicates that “company personnel” will be present at the\nexcavation site to take responsibility for certain functions of this task, such as\n5\n\n\n\nunderstanding soil types and soil compaction requirements. The above-referenced\ntraining module contains a section titled “Prerequisite Knowledge” that indicates “prior\nto backfilling a trench company personnel must be familiar with soil types, soil\ncompaction methods and backfilling operations.” The training module also indicates\n“company personnel are responsible for compacting backfill.” One of the exam questions\nwas “Who is ultimately responsible for determining whether backfill material is suitable\nfor backfill around the pipe?” with the correct answer being “Company Personnel.” This\ntraining module and exam are not acceptable for the task since the material indicates that\nthe individual being evaluated will not be responsible for understanding soil types or soil\ncompaction requirements, “Company Personnel” will have that responsibility. Moreover,\nPHMSA’s review revealed that Colonial does not always require company personnel to\nbe present during backfilling activities, which further nullifies the adequacy of the above-\nreferenced examination and performance verification.\nAs with the covered task referenced in Item 3 above, titled “Observation of Excavation\nActivities,” the performance verification from OQ Service Provider B could be done by\noral assessment and the performance verification from OQ Service Provider C was only\ndone by oral assessment, which is not adequate for the given task.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed\n$2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in Item 1 above and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $67,000.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Item 2, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Colonial Pipeline Company.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nRespon","truncated":true,"body_characters":43665}