TALLGRASS PONY EXPRESS PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF32022018NOPV_PCP PCO_01192022_(21-210993).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF32022018NOPV_PCP PCO_01192022_(21-210993)_text.pdf#

32022018NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hearing and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_02182022_(21-210993).pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY In the Matter of ) Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) REQUEST FOR INFORMAL CONFERENCE, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR ITEMS 3 AND 4 WRITTEN RESPONSE TO NOPV ITEMS 1, 2, AND 5 I. Request for Informal Conference Regarding Items 3 and 4 Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1)(B), Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC (Tallgrass) respectfully requests an informal meeting to discuss the allegations in Items 3 and 4 of the above- referenced Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (NOPV). Tallgrass is hopeful that through further discussion these portions of the NOPV can be addressed without a hearing. II. Alternative Request for Hearing Regarding Items 3 and 4 In order to preserve its rights, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.208(a)(4), 190.208(b)(4), and 190.211(b), Tallgrass also respectfully requests an in-person hearing for Items 3 and 4 in the event that the parties cannot resolve these items informally. If a hearing is held, Tallgrass will be represented by counsel at the hearing. III. Preliminary Statement of Issues Tallgrass respectfully contests the allegations of violation, the proposed civil penalties, and the proposed compliance terms for Items 3 and 4. At the hearing, Tallgrass intends to raise the following issues:#

32022018NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hearing and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_02182022_(21-210993).pdf, page 2Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC CPF 3-2022-018-NOPV Item 3 – 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2) – Point-to-point Verification A. Whether, based on the allegation in the NOPV and evidence in the record, PHMSA has met its burden of proof and persuasion that Tallgrass committed a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2). B. Whether the proposed civil penalty and compliance order should be withdrawn. C. If not withdrawn, whether the proposed compliance order should be modified. Item 4 – 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(g) – Incorporating Operator Experience A. Whether, based on the allegation in the NOPV and evidence in the record, PHMSA has met its burden of proof and persuasion that Tallgrass committed a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(g). B. Whether the proposed civil penalty and compliance order should be withdrawn. C. If not withdrawn, whether the proposed compliance order should be modified. Tallgrass reserves the right to supplement this preliminary statement of issues in response to any additional information or arguments from PHMSA. IV. Written Response to Items 1, 2, and 5 Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.208(a)(2), 190.208(a)(3) and 190.208(b)(3) Tallgrass provides the following written response to Items 1, 2, and 5 of the NOPV. A. Item 1 – 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) – Documenting Tests of Backup SCADA Systems Tallgrass provided the backup checklists at the time of the inspection. These records contain a section called “Setpoints”, where in each instance the test member verified that setpoint commands were sent and received. Inherent in testing setpoint entry is the issuance of a command. Since setpoints cannot be received without a command, verifying the setpoint receipt also verifies the command that issued them. Tallgrass has included excerpts of the checklists as Attachment 1 to further explain its position. Tallgrass respectfully requests that PHMSA correct the record in the Final Order by acknowledging that Tallgrass’ checklist records not only reflect its command and setpoint process but, in fact, demonstrate that the command and setpoints entry processes were tested in accordance with Tallgrass’s OM1100_GL procedure. 2#

32022018NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hearing and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_02182022_(21-210993).pdf, page 3Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC CPF 3-2022-018-NOPV B. Item 2– 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) – Documenting Training Tallgrass has an established controller training program which specifically includes fatigue management training. Tallgrass reasonably believes that the necessary training was performed by Controllers 1 and 2. Although, Tallgrass could not locate the fatigue records for those controllers as the records are maintained on a third-party training platform. Tallgrass has made a formal inquiry to the third-party to locate and provide the missing records. Unfortunately, the records could not be located as of the date of this Response. Tallgrass has further inquired of the vendor as to why such records may be missing. For these reasons, Tallgrass does not contest this warning item. In order to prevent this issue in the future and as a matter of continuous improvement of Tallgrass’ controller training program, two internal training coordinators have been hired. These training coordinators are tasked with the administration of the program in question as well as maintaining the integrity of the controller training records, among other training duties. C. Item 5 – 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j) – Documenting Deviations from Control Room Management Procedures PHMSA cites two allegations and Tallgrass contests these allegations in part. Krohne Leak Detection System PHMSA alleges that Tallgrass violated Section 195.446(j) by failing to maintain documentation of deviations from its control room management procedures. The listed deviations were the decision not to use the Krohne system for leak detection and an alleged failure to train its personnel on the Redtail NGL pipeline. Although not a section 195.446(j) violation, PHMSA also alleged that Tallgrass should have updated its procedures to eliminate references to the Krohne system. Tallgrass does not contest that it failed to file a deviation of its decision to no longer utilize the Krohne system for leak detection. Notably, Tallgrass never utilized the Krohne CPM for leak detection on the Redtail NGL pipeline; and therefore, was unaffected by the removal of the Krohne system from the Tallgrass suite of tools on its other pipelines. Redtail NGL Pipeline – Failure to Train In response to PHMSA’s allegation that Tallgrass failed to properly train its controllers on the Redtail NGL pipeline, it is important to clarify that Tallgrass did not use the Krohne CPM on Redtail; and thus, it would be unnecessary to train its controllers on the same. Instead, Redtail uses a meter balance threshold alarm to indicate potential leak scenarios. Contrary to the allegations in the NOPV, all controllers operating the Redtail NGL pipeline were properly trained on the use of the meter balance threshold alarm. Moreover, Tallgrass disagrees with PHMSA’ allegation that Tallgrass does not follow its own training procedures requiring the use of tabletop exercises with its controllers. Tallgrass’ primary method for controller training is focused on the recognition and response to Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOCs) of which the tabletop exercises conducted during Operator Qualification training (“OQ training”) are but one useful tool. In this regard, Tallgrass relies on 3#

32022018NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hearing and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_02182022_(21-210993).pdf, page 4Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC CPF 3-2022-018-NOPV the AOC suite of procedures including the AOC-F Leak Detection Guideline. An excerpt of the AOC-F Leak Detection Guideline for responding to leaks on the Redtail NGL pipeline is included as Attachment 2. As communicated during the inspection, controllers are trained on the use of all available leak detection tools during on-the-job (OJT) training, which includes using the Meter Balance Threshold alarm on Redtail. A controller’s proficiency in the use of these tools and their understanding of AOCs is verified during the Tallgrass’ Operator Qualification training (“OQ training”) as set forth under OM1100_GL, section 13.4 – System Training & Evaluation for New Controllers. As a part of the OQ training, a controller is presented with OJT tabletop exercises that present realistic scenarios and sufficient situations meant to challenge the controller’s knowledge as to the abnormal (including emergency) conditions that a controller may encounter during the operation of the pipeline. A trainer must observe and provide feedback on a controllers’ overall use of the tools and their performance during OJT tabletop exercises throughout the duration of their training. Additionally, controllers are required to participate in a series of live abnormal operations tabletop scenarios as a component of the final qualification review as required in OM1100_GL, Table 1 – Liquids System Operator Qualification Training. In sum, this means that all controllers must participate, be evaluated and pass tabletop exercises on Tallgrass’ assets in order to be considered qualified. In response to the other allegations in Item 5, Tallgrass filed a deviation to the CRM SharePoint Site on January 31, 2022, to account for the 2018-2020 time period without the use of the Krohne Leak Detection System. In addition, Tallgrass has updated its procedures to remove all references pertaining to the Krohne Leak Detection System. Finally, by June 30, 2022, Tallgrass will have implemented CPM or equivalent leak detection systems on all of its hazardous liquid pipelines, updated all procedures to reflect all necessary measures for identifying a leak using the systems, and trained all controllers on the use and operation of the leak detection systems. Thus, Tallgrass asserts that a compliance order is unnecessary for this allegation. Respectfully submitted this 18th day of February 2022. Jennifer Eckels Manager - Compliance 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (303) 763-3486 Enclosures: Attachment 1: 2018 OCC Backup Site Checklist 2019 OCC Fort Collins Site Checklist 2020 OCC Fort Collins Backup Site Checklist Attachment 2: AOC-F Leak Guideline 4#

32022018NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_03032022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFMarch 3, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jennifer.eckels@tallgrassenergylp.com and gregory.ochs@dot.gov Ms. Jennifer Eckels Manager, Compliance Tallgrass Energy, LP 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Mr. Gregory Ochs Director, Central Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 901 Locust Street, Suite 480 Kansas City, MO 64106 Re: Notice of Hearing, Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV Dear Ms. Eckels and Mr. Ochs: In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The hearing will take place on May 17, 2022, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Central Time. The hearing will be held via videoconference. I will provide the videoconference information prior to the hearing. At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by May 7, 2022), both parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and email address of each attendee. 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 contact me. Sincerely, Kristin Baldwin Presiding Official cc: Mr. William Moler, Chief Executive Officer, Tallgrass Energy, LP, bill.moler@tallgrass.com Ms. Crystal Heter, Chief Operating Officer, Tallgrass Energy, LP, crystal.heter@tallgrass.com#

32022018NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_03032022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 2CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV Page 2 Mr. Ricky Seaton, Director, Liquid Operations Control Center, Tallgrass Energy, LP, ricky.seaton@tallgrass.com Mr. Jarid Kling, VP, Operations Control & Systems Engineering, Tallgrass Energy, LP, jarid.kling@tallgrass.com Ms. Nicole Longwell, Assistant General Counsel, Tallgrass Energy, LP, nicole.longwell@tallgrass.com Mr. Joseph Hainline, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, joseph.hainline@dot.gov Mr. Ryan McClure, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, ryan.mcclure@dot.gov#

32022018NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hearing and Stmnt of Issues (Part 1)_02182022_(21-210993).pdf, page 1Official PDFVia Email to Gregory.Ochs@DOT.gov February 18, 2022 Mr. Gregory Ochs Director, Central Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 901 Locust Street, Suite 462 Kansas City, MO 64106 RE: CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV Request for Informal Conference Request for a Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues Written Response Dear Mr. Ochs, Tallgrass is in receipt of the Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (NOPV) that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued in the above-captioned case on January 19, 2022. The NOPV alleged five (5) violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). As described in the attached, Tallgrass requests an informal conference for Items 3 and 4 and provides written responses for Items 1, 2, and 5. In order to preserve its rights, Tallgrass also submits a Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues for Items 3 and 4 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211. Tallgrass hopes that the hearing will be unnecessary and that the parties can resolve this matter informally. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.208(e) and 190.343, Tallgrass is requesting confidential treatment of Attachment #2 to the Request for Informal Conference, Request for Hearing, and Preliminary Statement of Issues in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). This attachment contains confidential commercial information protected from release under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). Tallgrass shares PHMSA’s commitment to pipeline safety. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this response. I will contact you to discuss scheduling an informal conference for Items 3 and 4. Sincerely, Jennifer Eckels Manager - Compliance 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (303) 763-3486#

32022018NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hearing and Stmnt of Issues (Part 1)_02182022_(21-210993).pdf, page 2CC: Tallgrass: Byron Gale, Jay Meyers, Jarid Kling, Nicole Longwell, Crystal Heter PHMSA: Karen Butler, Valerie Schwing Enclosure: Request for Informal Conference, Request for Hearing, and Preliminary Statement of Issues Regarding Items 3 and 4, and Written Response for Items 1, 2, and 5#

32022018NOPV_PHC Hearing Canceled_06022022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDate: June 2, 2022 From: Ryan McClure To: File Re: Withdrawal of Hearing Request, Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC 3-2022-018-NOPV On May 17, 2022, Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline, LLC, by email, withdrew its request for a hearing for 3-2022-018-NOPV, which it submitted on February 18, 2022. The hearing, scheduled for May 17, 2022, has been cancelled.#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFMay 16, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: bill.moler@tallgrassenergylp.com Mr. William Moler Chief Executive Officer Tallgrass Energy, LP 4200 W. 115th Street, Suite 350 Leawood, Kansas 66211 CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV Dear Mr. Moler: Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass or Respondent), which was executed on May 11, 2022. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Sincerely, Alan K Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosures: Consent Agreement and Consent Order Cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Catherine Little, outside counsel for Tallgrass, catherine.little@troutman.com Ms. Jennifer Eckels, Compliance Manager, Tallgrass, jennifer.eckels@tallgrass.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_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 ) Tallgrass Energy, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CONSENT ORDER By letter dated January 21, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass or Respondent). In response to the Notice, Respondent requested a hearing on Items 3 and 4, contesting both the underlying violation and proposed civil penalty associated with each; contested warning Item 1 in writing; offered additional information regarding the facts underlying Items 2 and 5; and requested a modification of the proposed compliance order for Item 5 (Response). Respondent also asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss all items in the Notice. Respondent and PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the Response. As a result of those discussions, as explained in more detail below, PHMSA has agreed to certain factual clarifications associated with Items 1, 2, and 3, and Respondent has agreed without admission to withdraw its hearing request and accept the warning items and findings of violation alleged in the Notice, subject to the clarifications as set forth below, pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $44,800 for Items 3 and 4, and to undertake certain corrective measures. Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this Order. Tallgrass is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement, effective immediately. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. May 16, 2022 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Tallgrass Energy, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2022-018-NOPV ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CONSENT AGREEMENT From May 7 through May 11, 2018, and December 4 through December 6, 2018, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Tallgrass Energy, LP (Respondent) records for the hazardous liquid Control Room Management procedures and records in Lakewood, Colorado. This inspection covered Pony Express Pipeline, LLC (OPID 39043) and Tallgrass Midstream, LLC (OPID 39216). The inspection team continued the inspection after receiving items from Respondent through 2019. In addition, while working to complete inspection in 2020, PHMSA became aware of a complaint that had a common area of focus with the prior inspection. For this reason, the inspection and complaint resolution continued from 2019 through October 2021. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 21, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that Respondent committed probable violations of seven provisions of 49 C.F.R. part 195, proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations, and proposed a civil penalty in the amount of $55,200 associated with those items. Two of the probable violations (Items 1 and 2) were brought as warnings, advising Respondent to correct them or be subject to potential future enforcement action. In response to the Notice, Respondent, for Item 1, stated that its checklist records reflect its command and setpoint process and demonstrate that the command and setpoint entry processes were tested in accordance with its procedures. Respondent did not contest Item 2. Regarding Item 5, Respondent asserted that a compliance order is unnecessary in light of its actions following receipt of the Notice. Respondent also requested a hearing and asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss Items 3 and 4. For both of Items 3 and 4, Respondent contested the underlying allegations of violation, as well as the proposed civil penalties and compliance orders. 1#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 4PHMSA and Respondent (the Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the Response. As a result of those discussions, as explained in more detail below, PHMSA has agreed to certain factual clarifications associated with Items 1, 2, and 3, and Respondent has agreed without admission to withdraw its hearing request and accept the warning items and findings of violation alleged in the Notice, subject to the clarifications as set forth below, pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $44,800 for Items 3 and 4, and to undertake certain corrective measures. Having agreed that settlement of this enforcement action will avoid further administrative proceedings or litigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the environment, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent and PHMSA, the Parties hereby agree as follows: I. General Provisions: 1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to the Notice, Respondent and its referenced hazardous liquid pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. 2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement. 3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to contest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except as set forth herein. 4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement. 5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice. 2#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 56. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA’s authority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law. 7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline system referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective transferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the transfer to the PHMSA Central Regional Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs. 8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits. 9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement. 10. Except as otherwise specified below, Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegation or conclusion in the Notice or this Agreement but agrees for purposes of this Agreement to comply with the terms of this Agreement. 11. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms. II. Warning Items: 12. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its written control room management procedures when implementing the test of any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, as required by § 195.446(c)(4). During the inspection and informal discussion, Respondent presented records showing testing of the back-up SCADA system was performed, but the records did not include sufficient detail to demonstrate to PHMSA that Respondent’s procedures were followed regarding command and setpoints. This item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. Respondent does not contest this Warning Item. 13. Item 2: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed 3#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 6to follow its written control room management procedures when implementing methods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could inhibit a controller’s ability to carry out the roles and responsibilities by not training controllers to recognize the effects of fatigue, as required by § 195.446(d)(3). This item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. Respondent does not contest this Warning Item and has undertaken certain remedial actions to address the issue identified in the Notice, including the hiring of a training coordinator. 14. For Warning Items 1 and 2, if OPS finds a violation of these provisions in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement actions. III. Findings of Violation: 15. Item 3: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment when field equipment was added or moved, and when other changes that affect pipeline safety were made to field equipment or SCADA displays on its Pony Express pipeline system. During the informal discussions, Respondent presented records showing that it is working to modify its procedures to include required verifications of SCADA displays during point-to-point activities. Respondent does not contest the allegation of violation as alleged in the Notice. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2). 16. Item 4: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(g)(1): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to demonstrate that accidents required to be reported pursuant to §§ 195.50 and 195.52 were reviewed to assure that lessons learned from its operating experience are incorporated, as appropriate, into its control room management procedures. Respondent does not contest the allegation of violation as alleged in the Notice. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(g)(1). 17. Item 5: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(2): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain documentation to demonstrate that any deviation from its control room procedures (CRM) was necessary for the safe operation of the pipeline facility, as required. Respondent does not contest the allegation of violation as alleged in the Notice. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(2). 18. Items 3, 4, and 5 will be considered by PHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent for the five (5)-year period following the Effective Date of this Agreement. IV. Civil Penalty: 19. Item 3: Respondent shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $22,400 for Item 3. 20. Item 4: Respondent shall pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $22,400 for Item 4. During the informal discussion, Respondent presented information in support of its request for a reduced civil penalty. Specifically, Respondent presented information regarding the 4#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 7companies’ efforts to improve its records and alarm system for the tanks at issue in the violation. PHMSA finds that a reduction to the proposed civil penalty is warranted under the gravity factor from “[t]he violation occurred NOT within a HCA or “could affect” HCA, and NOT within an area required to be covered by a gas distribution system integrity management program”, to “Pipeline safety was minimally affected, notwithstanding the conditions above.” 21. Respondent shall pay a total civil penalty in the amount of $44,800, to be paid in full no later than 20 days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. V. Compliance Order: 22. Item 3: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the non- compliance alleged in the Notice. Respondent requested that the timeframe provided by the Proposed Compliance Order (PCO) associated with Item 3 be extended to allow the company to complete this requirement within 90 days, or to align with a maintenance shutdown to accommodate the work, whichever comes first. PHMSA agrees to this request. Accordingly, in regard to Item 3 of the Notice pertaining to Buckingham Terminal points on the Pony Express pipeline and point-to-point records, Respondent must: For those safety related points designated in-service when Respondent submitted the 2017 construction notification for the Buckingham Terminal extension, complete a point-to-point for each point from the field end device through to the SCADA system displays within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, or to align with a maintenance shutdown to accommodate the work, whichever comes first, starting with submitting a complete list of all points (tags, point names, descriptors) with an identification of whether or not it is a point that can impact safety. After this designation is provided, Respondent must then submit a list of those points that have safety related alarms and what parameters (attributes) are safety related. The completed point-to-point records for each point that can impact safety, or for safety related alarms, must include at a minimum, and not all inclusive, the following: recording the ranges of equipment (if analog) employed, the confirmation of the event and alarming functions (as maybe relevant), confirmation and testing of any automated logic such as automated pump shutdown upon high discharge or low suction, the relevant alarm setpoint values and alarm descriptors, confirmation of the correct alarm response by color including action (such as blinking) and priority for all relevant displays and alarm summary screens, and record a list of all SCADA displays that have been reviewed to confirm correct display response and correct location of the point (screen shots with listing). The record must include who performs the verification in the field at the end device, identify the end device, and who performs the control room verification on each day along with the relevant date, and must describe the method used for the confirmation (such as pressure switch tripped and valve closed, or pressure transmitter calibrated, simulation of loss of communication at the PLC, etc.). These records must be submitted to the Director, Central region within 30 days of completing the point-to-point confirmation and verification of SCADA displays. 5#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 823. Item 4: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the non- compliance alleged in the Notice. Respondent requested that the timeframe provided by the PCO associated with Item 4 be extended until December 30, 2022, to allow Respondent time to complete its development of a plan to assess the feasibility of a dynamic tank alarming system for tank systems. PHMSA agrees to this request. Accordingly, regarding Item 4 of the Notice and pertaining specifically to the Sterling Tank, Respondent must: Provide to the Director, Central Region, by December 30, 2022, a summary of what leak alarms have been added for this location for controller use. In addition, by December 30, 2022, provide to the Director, Central Region, a list of all other similar locations and identify either the leak alarms added with the associated dates of implementation, or a proposed plan in place to add similar alarms. If leak alarms have not been added for similar installations at other locations and a plan has not been developed for these to be added, then a plan must be provided to the Director, Central Region regarding planned dates of implementation, or justification for why this was not necessary at various locations for pipeline safety must be provided. 24. Item 5: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the non- compliance alleged in the Notice. Respondent requested that PHMSA remove from the PCO for Item 5 the order to write a deviation for the years under which the Krohnes leak detection system has not been used and update all procedures to remove references to this system. During informal discussion, Respondent provided documentation showing this had been completed. As such, PHMSA finds that Respondent has satisfied the terms of the PCO with respect to this requirement. Respondent additionally requested that the timeframe for implementing a fully functioning leak system detection be extended until September 30, 2022. PHMSA agrees to this request. Accordingly, regarding Item 5 of the Notice pertaining to pertaining to a deviation of leak detection procedures, Respondent must: By September 30, 2022, have a fully functioning CPM leak detection system and have updated all relevant procedures, performed training, and implemented this selected system on all segments of the Hazardous liquid pipeline systems operating in crude or refined products services. For any HVL systems, all procedure must be updated accurately to reflect how a leak will be detected, and training performed by September 30, 2022. Records of each element required in this compliance order (written deviations, procedure updates, training) including testing associated with the new leak detection system (FAT and SAT tests) will be submitted to the Director, Central Region Office within 30 days of completion of that element. VI. Enforcement: 25. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties 6#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 9under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $239,142 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with determinations made by the Director, or if appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223. VII. Dispute Resolution: 26. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement, including but not limited to any decision of the Director. If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director, Respondent may submit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made in writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Central Region, and to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this paragraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate Administrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the Director or the Associate Administrator in writing, or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. VIII. Effective Date: 27. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order is issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement. IX. Modification: 28. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties. X. Ratification: 29. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to this document. 30. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Agreement. [Signature Lines on Following Page] 7#

32022018NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_05162022_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 10For Tallgrass Energy, LP: _________________________________ Date ___________________________ For PHMSA: _________________________________ Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Date ___________________________ 8#

32022018NOPV_Closure Letter_09302025_(21-210993)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: CEO@tallgrass.com; danielle.stephens@tallgrass.com; crystal.heter@tallgrass.com September 30, 2025 Matt Sheehy, President & Chief Executive Officer Tallgrass Energy, LP Pony Express Pipeline, LLC Tallgrass Midstream, LLC 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood,Colorado 80228 RE: CPF 3-2022-018 NOPV Dear Mr. Sheehy: On May 16, 2022, a Consent Order was issued incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA This Consent Agreement included a Compliance Order and a Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation provided by Tallgrass and confirmation of payment of the Civil Penalty, it has been determined that Tallgrass has complied with the terms of the Consent Agreement and Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, David Barrett, Acting Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: Danielle Stephens, Director Compliance, danielle.stephens@tallgrass.com Crystal Heter, Chief Operating Officer,#