{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32022026NOPV","title":"COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-05-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.446(a), 195.446(c)(3), 195.446(c)(4), 195.446(e)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022026nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022026nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022026nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32022026NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLONIAL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.446(a),  195.446(c)(3),  195.446(c)(4),  195.446(e)(2). The case was opened on 2022-05-05 and is reported as closed as of 2024-04-09. Proposed civil penalty: $986,400. Assessed civil penalty: $948,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32022026NOPV_Closure Letter_04092024_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Closure%20Letter_04092024_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Closure Letter_04092024_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Closure%20Letter_04092024_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09012023_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_09012023_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09012023_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_09012023_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Operator Post-Hearing Submission_01132023_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Submission_01132023_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_10062022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submission_10062022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Operator Response to Notice etc (Part 1)_06062022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20etc%20(Part%201)_06062022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Operator Response to Notice etc (Part 2)_06062022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20etc%20(Part%202)_06062022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_09012023_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_09012023_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PCP PCO_05052022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PCP%20PCO_05052022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PCP PCO_05052022_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PCP%20PCO_05052022_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_10072022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_10072022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_10072022_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_10072022_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_10172022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_10172022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_10172022_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_10172022_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06242022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06242022_(20-173062).pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06242022_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06242022_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\n32022026NOPV_Closure Letter_04092024_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: MLittle@colpipe.com; QFrazier@colpipe.com;\nakolar@colpipe.com; catherine.little@bracewell.com\nApril 9, 2024\nMelanie Little\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1000 Lake Street\nAlpharetta, Georgia 30009\nRE: CPF 3-2022-026-NOPV\nDear Ms. Little:\nOn September 1, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the\nConsent Agreement and entered into between the parties in the above-referenced case. This\nConsent Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review\nof the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that Colonial has complied with the terms of this Consent Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Quintin Frazier, Director, Pipeline Compliance, Colonial Pipeline Co.\nQFrazier@colpipe.com\nAngela D. Kolar, Senior Vice President, Operations, EHS, & Compliance, Colonial\nPipeline Co. , akolar@colpipe.com\nCatherine Little, Esq., Counsel for Colonial Pipeline Co., Bracewell LLP,\ncatherine.little@bracewell.com\n\n32022026NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09012023_(20-173062)_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 1, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: MLittle@colpipe.com\nMelanie Little\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nColonial Pipeline Company\n1000 Lake Street\nAlpharetta, Georgia 30009\nCPF No. 3-2022-026-NOPV\nCPF No. 3-2022-028-NOA\nDear Ms. Little:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement\nbetween the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Colonial\nPipeline Company, which was executed on August 30, 2023. Service of the Consent Order and\nConsent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise 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: Consent Order and Consent Agreement\ncc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Angela D. Kolar, Senior Vice President, Operations, EHS, & Compliance, Colonial\nPipeline Company, akolar@colpipe.com\nMs. Catherine Little, Counsel for Colonial Pipeline Company, Bracewell LLP,\ncatherine.little@bracewell.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 )\n)\n)\nColonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2022-026-NOPV\n) CPF No. 3-2022-028-NOA\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letter dated May 5, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial or\nRespondent). PHMSA issued a separate Notice of Amendment (NOA) to Colonial by letter on May\n27, 2022.\nIn response to the Notice, Respondent requested a hearing on Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Notice,\nthe associated proposed civil penalty, and the proposed compliance order obligations (Response).\nRespondent did not contest Items 3 and 6 of the Notice. In its Response, Colonial also requested a\nhearing on Items 5 and 7 of the NOA. Respondent did not contest Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the\nNOA. Colonial also asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the\nissues raised by the contested Notice and NOA Items. Respondent and PHMSA (The Parties)\nsubsequently met on several occasions to discuss the issues raised in the Response. Through these\nmeetings, the Parties agreed on a resolution of all Items except Item 5 of the Notice and Item 5 of\nthe NOA. A hearing was held on November 30, 2022, regarding Notice Item 5 and NOA Item 5.\nIn July 2023, the Parties resumed informal settlement discussions for Item 5 of the Notice and Item\n5 of the NOA. As a result of those resumed discussions, as explained in more detail below, the\nParties have agreed to a Consent Agreement which resolves the allegations set forth in the Notice\nand NOA, to include a reduced civil of $948,400.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nConsent Order. Colonial is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement\npursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent\nOrder may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the\nUnited States. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 1, 2023\n_________________________________ ________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nColonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2022-026-NOPV\n) CPF No. 3-2022-028-NOA\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nFrom January 27 to November 12, 2020, and from October 29 to November 4, 2021, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or the\nAgency), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.) inspected Colonial Pipeline Company’s (Colonial or Respondent) procedures and\nrecords for Control Room Management (CRM) in Linden, New Jersey; Hebert, Texas;\nGreensboro, North Carolina; and Alpharetta, Georgia.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Colonial, by\nletter dated May 5, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), and a separate Notice of Amendment (NOA) and Warning Letter\nissued by letters on May 27, 2022. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had violated seven provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (Items 1 through 7),\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations, and\nproposed a civil penalty in the amount of $986,400. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the\nNOA alleged eight procedures were inadequate to assure the safe operation of a pipeline facility\nand proposed that Respondent submit revised procedures to address the inadequacies identified.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, the Warning Letter advised Colonial to address two\nareas to avoid potential future enforcement action, but otherwise did not require further response\nby Respondent.\nDuring and following PHMSA’s inspections in 2020 and 2021, Respondent worked with the\nAgency to better understand and proactively address the comments and concerns raised by\nPHMSA, including those raised by PHMSA shortly before issuance of the Notice. With that as\nbackground and in response to the Notice, Respondent requested a hearing to address the issues\npresented by Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Notice, the associated proposed civil penalty, and the\nassociated proposed compliance order (PCO) obligations. Respondent did not contest Items 3\n\n\n\nand 6 of the Notice. Item 6 of the Notice was brought as a warning requiring no further action\nby Respondent. In response to the NOA, Respondent requested a hearing on Items 5 and 7 of the\nNOA. Respondent did not contest Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the NOA and timely submitted\nrevised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region, to address those Items.\nIn responding to the Notice and the NOA, Respondent asked for the opportunity to meet\ninformally with PHMSA to discuss the issues raised by the contested Notice and NOA Items.\nRespondent and PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met on several occasions to discuss the\nissues. Through those meetings, the Parties agreed on a resolution of all items except Item 5 of\nthe Notice and Item 5 of the NOA. Additionally, Respondent addressed all PCO obligations\nwith subsequent approval by PHMSA.\nJoint stipulations were provided to the Presiding Official on November 29, 2022 regarding\nNotice Items 1-4, 6-7 and NOA Items 1-4, 6-8 in advance of a Hearing limited to Item 5 of the\nNotice and Item 5 of the NOA. A Hearing was held on November 30, 2022 in Kansas City,\nMissouri regarding Notice Item 5 and NOA Item 5. After the Hearing, post-hearing briefings\nwere timely filed by the Parties. The Parties resumed informal settlement meetings in July 2023.\nAs a result of those discussions, and subject to the clarifications set forth below, the Parties have\nagreed to resolve the allegations set forth in the Notice and NOA and Respondent has agreed to\npay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $948,400.\nHaving agreed that settlement of the Notice and the NOA will avoid further administrative\nproceedings or litigation of those Items and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and\nprotection of the environment, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, and upon consent and agreement\nof Respondent and PHMSA, the Parties hereby agree as follows:\nI. General Provisions\n1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to\nthe Notice and NOA, Respondent and its referenced hazardous liquid pipeline facilities are\nsubject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the\nregulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent\nAgreement (Agreement), Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA's\nactions in these proceedings and that the Notice and NOA state claims upon which relief may be\ngranted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s\nrepresentative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending\nthat the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative\norder (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement\nconstitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the\nAssociate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\n3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any\nfurther procedural requirements with respect to its issuance as long as it is consistent with the\nterms of this Agreement. Respondent waives all rights to contest the adequacy of the Notice or\n\n\n\nthe NOA, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including all rights to\nadministrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except as set forth herein.\n4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its\nofficers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise\nbound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work\nplans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might\nreasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\n5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement.\nThe Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating\nto settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this\nAgreement may be construed by reference to the Notice and the NOA.\n6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,\net seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters\nPHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to\nbring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.\n7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline\nsystem referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the\ntransfer to the PHMSA Central Regional Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\n8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline system. This Agreement is not a permit,\nor a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nRespondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable\nFederal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third\nparty not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any\ninjuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its\nofficers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent\nagrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents,\nand representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement.\n10. Except as noted below, Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegation or\nconclusion in the Notice, the NOA, or this Agreement. Respondent agrees for purposes of this\nAgreement to accept the findings of violation and to comply with the terms of this Agreement.\n11. During informal discussions, Respondent presented evidence showing that the\nnumber of prior offenses during the 5-year period preceding the issuance of the Notice was\nincorrectly calculated in the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report). As such,\n\n\n\nPHMSA agrees to reduce the number of prior offenses during the 5-year period preceding the\nNotice date from 4 to 3 for Items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.\n12. Except as set forth herein, this Agreement does not constitute a finding of\nviolation of any other federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of\nany kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of a violation of any\nlaw, rule, regulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this\nAgreement or in future PHMSA enforcement actions.\n13. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms.\nII. Notice - Warning Item\n14. Item 6: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\ntest the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) backup servers at the Linden,\nHebert, and Greensboro field operations control rooms at least once each calendar year, but at\nintervals not to exceed 15 months, for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. This Item was brought as\na warning and does not constitute a finding of violation for any purpose. Respondent was\nadvised to promptly correct this issue going forward, and that a failure to do so may result in\nfuture enforcement action. Respondent did not contest this Warning Item. Following PHMSA’s\ninspection and without admission, Respondent developed procedures and performed tests of its\nservers to meet the requirements of this section. The Director found that the procedures and tests\nfor Linden, Hebert and Greensboro are adequate.\nIII. Notice - Findings of Violation\n15. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\nfollow its procedure, ADM-CPC-008 Rev.2 7/1/2019 Point-To-Point Verification, when\ndocumenting a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment\nat Linden Station in calendar year 2019. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of\nviolation for this Item, but, for purposes of settlement, agrees to accept the finding of violation.\nAs such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered\nby PHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against\nRespondent. During informal discussions, Respondent, without admission, provided updated\nprocedures to address this Item and presented evidence showing that the failure to document a\npoint-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment at Linden\nStation was a records violation, not an activities violation. As such, PHMSA agrees to amend\nthe nature of the offense to a records violation.\n16. Item 2: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\nfollow its procedures when conducting and documenting point-to-point verifications in Safety\nLife Cycle Management (SLM) system for Safety Related Alarms to ensure alarms are accurate\nand support safe pipeline operations. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of\nviolation for this Item, but has without admission updated its procedures to address this Item.\nFurther, for purposes of settlement, Respondent agrees to accept the finding of violation. As\nsuch, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered by\nPHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n17. Item 3: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\ncomplete and document verifications of alarm set-point and alarm descriptions in compliance\nwith its procedures when associated field instruments were calibrated or changed for safety\nrelated points at the Greensboro facility. The Notice also alleged that for the years 2017, 2018,\nand 2019, Respondent was not able to verify that all safety-related alarm set-point values and\nalarm descriptions were correct. Respondent did not contest this Item. As such, PHMSA finds a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior\noffense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.\n18. Item 4: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\nprovide a procedure to satisfy the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(3), which requires\nverification of the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions when\nassociated field instruments are calibrated or changed and at least once each calendar year not to\nexceed 15 months. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of violation for this Item\nbut has without admission updated its procedures to address this Item. Further, for purposes of\nsettlement, Respondent agrees to accept the finding of violation. As such, PHMSA finds a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior\noffense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.\n19. Item 5: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\n“test and verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation\nof the pipeline safely at least once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months,” as required by\n49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3), at Linden and Hebert in 2017, 2018, and 2019, Greensboro in 2018\nand 2019, Alpharetta in 2017, and Baton Rouge, Collins, and Charlotte in 2018, 2019, 2020.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s plan is required to include communications for\nmonitoring and manual operation of the pipeline which may include manual shut down and/or\nstart up in the event of SCADA loss as well as a method for leak detection.\n20. Respondent maintains that, in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3), it\ntested and verified its internal communication plan annually, not to exceed 15 months, through\nactual events at other locations on its system. While testing based on actual events may be used\nto satisfy the requirements of § 195.446(c)(3), PHMSA maintains that Respondent’s failure to\ntest and verify an internal communication plan at all of its control room locations is a violation.\nRespondent expressly denies that its alleged failure to comply with the regulation was a\ndeliberate decision as set forth in the Violation Report. Further, PHMSA is not alleging that\nRespondent did anything to cause the May 7, 2021, criminal cyberattack on Respondent’s\npipeline system and PHMSA acknowledges that the criminal cyberattack has no bearing on the\nunderlying facts giving rise to the allegation; i.e., the criminal cyberattack was not a factor\ncausing or contributing to the underlying alleged non-compliance.\n21. Prior to the Notice, Respondent believed that testing and verification of the\ninternal communication plan was required in a single control room operating under the same\ncontrol room management plan. Based on discussions with PHMSA since issuance of the\nNotice, Respondent acknowledges the importance of having an internal communication plan\nwhich has been tested and verified at all control rooms to facilitate manual operations. Upon\nfurther discussion between the Parties, Respondent (1) updated its plans and procedures to\naddress this Item, (2) tested and verified its internal communication plan in each of its control\n\n\n\nrooms in 2022, and (3) has and will continue to test and verify its internal communication plan in\neach applicable control room on an annual basis, not to exceed 15 months. Respondent provided\nits updated plans and procedures and testing and verification records to Central Region for\nreview. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of violation for this Item, but, for\npurposes of settlement, agrees to accept the finding of violation. As such, PHMSA finds a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior\noffense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.\n22. Item 7: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2): The Notice alleged that Respondent, for the\ncontrol rooms in Greensboro, Hebert, and Linden, failed to identify and record, at least monthly,\nall points affecting safety that had been taken off scan in the SCADA host; all points that have\nhad alarms inhibited; or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that\nrequired for associated maintenance or operating activities for the years 2017, 2018 and\n2019. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of violation for this Item, but, for\npurposes of settlement, agrees to accept the finding of violation. As such, PHMSA finds a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior\noffense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent. During informal\ndiscussions, Respondent without admission provided updated procedures to address PHMSA’s\nconcern and presented evidence showing that this offense was a records violation, not an\nactivities violation. Respondent also presented evidence showing that its failure to comply with\nthe regulation was not deliberate. As such, PHMSA agrees to amend the nature of the offense to\na records violation and reduce the culpability assigned to it.\nIV. Civil Penalty\n23. Item 1: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $31,100\nfor Item 1. As noted in paragraphs 11 and 15, during the informal meetings between the Parties,\nRespondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was\nincorrectly calculated in the Violation Report and that the nature of the offense was a records\nviolation. Based on the information provided, PHMSA agrees to reduce the proposed civil\npenalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $24,100, to be\npaid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective Date of this Agreement.\n24. Item 2: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $31,700\nfor Item 2. As noted in paragraph 11, during the informal meetings between the Parties,\nRespondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was\nincorrectly calculated in the Violation Report. Based on the information provided, PHMSA\nagrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced civil\npenalty in the amount of $28,300, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective Date\nof this Agreement.\n25. Item 3: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $31,700\nfor Item 3. As noted in paragraph 11, during the informal meetings between the Parties,\nRespondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was\nincorrectly calculated in the Violation Report. Based on the information provided, PHMSA\nagrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced civil\n\n\n\npenalty in the amount of $28,300, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective Date\nof this Agreement.\n26. Item 5: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $846,300\nfor Item 5. Prior to the Notice, Respondent believed that testing and verification of the internal\ncommunication plan was required in a single control room operating under the same control\nroom management plan and for this reason expressly denies that its alleged failure to comply\nwith the regulation was deliberate. As noted in paragraph 11, during the informal meetings\nbetween the Parties, Respondent provided additional information showing that the number of\nprior offenses was incorrectly calculated in the Violation Report. Based on the information\nprovided, PHMSA agrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a\nreduced civil penalty in the amount of $842,900, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the\nEffective Date of this Agreement.\n27. Item 7: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $45,600\nfor Item 7. As noted in paragraphs 11 and 22, during the informal meetings between the Parties,\nRespondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was\nincorrectly calculated in the Violation Report, that the offense was a records violation, and that\nits failure to comply with the regulation was not deliberate. Based on the information provided,\nPHMSA agrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced\ncivil penalty in the amount of $24,800, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective\nDate of this Agreement.\nV. Compliance Order\n28. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to\naddress the allegations of non-compliance. Respondent, in response to the Notice, requested an\ninformal discussion with PHMSA to discuss the terms of proposed compliance order. During\nthese discussions, Respondent, without admitting or denying the allegations of violation,\npresented evidence of the remedial actions, including updated and revised procedures, it\nundertook in response to Notice Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and associated PCO actions. Based upon\nthese remedial actions and revised procedures, PHMSA finds the terms of the proposed\ncompliance order for these Items have been satisfied.\n29. Item 5: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the\nallegation of non-compliance. Respondent, without admitting or denying the allegation of\nviolation, completed and provided documentation, which has been approved by the Director,\nCentral Region, of Respondent’s tests and verifications of its internal communication plan to\nprovide adequate means for manual operation for all eleven (11) CRM control rooms (including\nAlpharetta and field) in 2022, and for five (5) of the eleven (11) control rooms thus far in 2023.\nBased upon these remedial actions, PHMSA finds the terms of the proposed compliance order\nfor Item 5 have been satisfied.\n\n\n\nVI. NOA – Findings of Inadequacy\n30. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to\ndefine the roles and responsibilities of controllers related to time absent from the console when\nconducting a shift turnover during normal operations, and the procedures were therefore\ninadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(1). Respondent did not contest this allegation\nof inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The\nDirector found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.\n31. Item 2: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to\nprovide specific actions for the controller, or control room staff, to take including\ncommunicating with others, and were therefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. §\n195.446(b)(3). Respondent did not contest this allegation of inadequacy and provided revised\nprocedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The Director found that the procedures,\nas revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.\n32. Item 3: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to have\na shift hand-over process for instances when an outgoing controller was not/unable to be present\nand was therefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(4). Respondent did not\ncontest this allegation of inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director,\nCentral Region. The Director found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further\naction is necessary.\n33. Item 4: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(4): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s\nprocedure at the Greensboro Control room for periodically changing physical responsibility\nfailed to cover the local desk operation where the pipeline is shut down, and when the console\nlogged out and controllers leave the console unattended on weeknights and weekends, and was\ntherefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(4). The NOA also alleged there was\nno alternative in the procedure for monitoring alarms normally assigned to the local desk during\nthe unattended console times. Respondent did not contest this allegation of inadequacy and\nprovided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The Director found that\nthe procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.\n34. Item 5: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to\naddress the testing and verification of the internal communications plan to facilitate manual\noperation and that the procedures were therefore inadequate to comply with the requirements of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3). Respondent neither admits nor denies the NOA allegation, but for\npurposes of settlement, has amended its CRM plans and certain site-specific procedures, which\nhave been approved by the Director, Central Region, to require testing and verification of an\ninternal communication plan to facilitate manual operations of the pipeline safely once each\ncalendar year, not to exceed fifteen (15) months. Specifically, the Director, Central Region,\nreviewed and approved Respondent’s amended CRM manual and related attachments regarding\nthe internal communication plan for manual operation. The operator provided certain amended\nsite-specific operating procedures for each of Respondent’s eleven (11) control rooms and one\n(1) representative records log, which were reviewed and approved by PHMSA. For the amended\nsite-specific operating procedures for the five (5) control rooms tested in 2023 using\nRespondent’s amended 2022 procedures (i.e., Collins, Charlotte, Greensboro, Linden, and\n\n\n\nWoodbury), the Director found that these plans and procedures reviewed, as revised, are\nadequate to provide adequate means for manual operations and no further action is necessary as\nto those specific procedures. Respondent will provide the remaining revised site-specific\noperating procedures associated with six (6) of its control rooms (i.e., Alpharetta, Baton Rouge,\nHebert, Houston, Lake Charles, and Port Arthur) to the Director, Central Region, for review and\napproval within forty-five (45) calendar days of the Effective Date. The Central Region will\nreview and notify Respondent whether the revised procedures are adequate within thirty (30)\nbusiness days of their receipt.\n35. Item 6: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s procedure\nfor testing the backup SCADA systems failed to require testing the field servers and was\ntherefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4). Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central\nRegion. The Director found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is\nnecessary.\n36. Item 7: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s\nprocedure for the monthly review of safety related alarms failed to define the required process of\nreview. Respondent neither admits nor denies the NOA allegation, but, for purposes of\nsettlement, agreed to amend its procedures. During the Parties’ informal discussions,\nRespondent without admission provided PHMSA an updated version of its procedures that\naddress the alleged inadequacy. As such, PHMSA agrees to withdraw the allegation of\ninadequacy for this Item.\n37. Item 8: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s controller\ntraining program (CRM Plan Revision 13.0 7/2/2020) failed to require a review at least once\neach calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed fifteen (15) months, and was therefore\ninadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h). Respondent did not contest this allegation of\ninadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The\nDirector found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.\nVII. Enforcement\n38. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA\nunder 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties\nunder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $239,142 per violation for each day the violation continues (as\nmay be adjusted for inflation) and referral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial\nenforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not complying with the terms of this\nAgreement in accordance with determinations made by the Director, or if appealed, in\naccordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. The maximum civil penalty amounts\nare adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\nVIII. Force Majeure\n39. Respondent agrees to perform all the terms of this Agreement within the\ntimeframes established within this Agreement, including pursuant to modifications under Section\nXI, unless performance is delayed by a force majeure. For purposes of this Agreement, a force\n\n\n\nmajeure is defined by an event arising from causes beyond the control of the Respondent, or any\nentity controlled by Respondent or Respondent’s contractors, which delays or prevents\nperformance of any obligation under this Agreement despite Respondent’s commercially\nreasonable efforts to fulfill the obligation.\n40. If a force majeure event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of\nany term of this Agreement beyond the approved timeframe, Respondent shall notify the\nDirector, in writing, within five (5) business days of when Respondent knew that the event might\ncause a delay. Such notice shall ident","truncated":true,"body_characters":49357}