# COLONIAL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

32022026NOPV_Closure Letter_04092024_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Closure%20Letter_04092024_(20-173062).pdf

32022026NOPV_Closure Letter_04092024_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_Closure%20Letter_04092024_(20-173062)_text.pdf

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_PCP PCO_05052022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PCP%20PCO_05052022_(20-173062).pdf

32022026NOPV_PCP PCO_05052022_(20-173062)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PCP%20PCO_05052022_(20-173062)_text.pdf

32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_10072022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_10072022_(20-173062).pdf

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_10172022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_10172022_(20-173062).pdf

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06242022_(20-173062).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022026NOPV/32022026NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06242022_(20-173062).pdf

32022026NOPV_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

32022026NOPV_Closure Letter_04092024_(20-173062)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: MLittle@colpipe.com; QFrazier@colpipe.com;
akolar@colpipe.com; catherine.little@bracewell.com
April 9, 2024
Melanie Little
President and Chief Executive Officer
Colonial Pipeline Company
1000 Lake Street
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
RE: CPF 3-2022-026-NOPV
Dear Ms. Little:
On September 1, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the
Consent Agreement and entered into between the parties in the above-referenced case. This
Consent Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review
of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that Colonial has complied with the terms of this Consent 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,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Quintin Frazier, Director, Pipeline Compliance, Colonial Pipeline Co.
QFrazier@colpipe.com
Angela D. Kolar, Senior Vice President, Operations, EHS, & Compliance, Colonial
Pipeline Co. , akolar@colpipe.com
Catherine Little, Esq., Counsel for Colonial Pipeline Co., Bracewell LLP,
catherine.little@bracewell.com

32022026NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09012023_(20-173062)_text.pdf

September 1, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: MLittle@colpipe.com
Melanie Little
President and Chief Executive Officer
Colonial Pipeline Company
1000 Lake Street
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
CPF No. 3-2022-026-NOPV
CPF No. 3-2022-028-NOA
Dear Ms. Little:
Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement
between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Colonial
Pipeline Company, which was executed on August 30, 2023. 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.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement
cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Angela D. Kolar, Senior Vice President, Operations, EHS, & Compliance, Colonial
Pipeline Company, akolar@colpipe.com
Ms. Catherine Little, Counsel for Colonial Pipeline Company, Bracewell LLP,
catherine.little@bracewell.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
Colonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2022-026-NOPV
) CPF No. 3-2022-028-NOA
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT ORDER
By letter dated May 5, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial or
Respondent). PHMSA issued a separate Notice of Amendment (NOA) to Colonial by letter on May
27, 2022.
In response to the Notice, Respondent requested a hearing on Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Notice,
the associated proposed civil penalty, and the proposed compliance order obligations (Response).
Respondent did not contest Items 3 and 6 of the Notice. In its Response, Colonial also requested a
hearing on Items 5 and 7 of the NOA. Respondent did not contest Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the
NOA. Colonial also asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the
issues raised by the contested Notice and NOA Items. Respondent and PHMSA (The Parties)
subsequently met on several occasions to discuss the issues raised in the Response. Through these
meetings, the Parties agreed on a resolution of all Items except Item 5 of the Notice and Item 5 of
the NOA. A hearing was held on November 30, 2022, regarding Notice Item 5 and NOA Item 5.
In July 2023, the Parties resumed informal settlement discussions for Item 5 of the Notice and Item
5 of the NOA. As a result of those resumed discussions, as explained in more detail below, the
Parties have agreed to a Consent Agreement which resolves the allegations set forth in the Notice
and NOA, to include a reduced civil of $948,400.
Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this
Consent Order. Colonial is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement
pursuant to its terms. 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 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the
United States. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
September 1, 2023
_________________________________ ________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of )
)
)
Colonial Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2022-026-NOPV
) CPF No. 3-2022-028-NOA
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT AGREEMENT
From January 27 to November 12, 2020, and from October 29 to November 4, 2021, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or the
Agency), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) inspected Colonial Pipeline Company’s (Colonial or Respondent) procedures and
records for Control Room Management (CRM) in Linden, New Jersey; Hebert, Texas;
Greensboro, North Carolina; and Alpharetta, Georgia.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Colonial, by
letter dated May 5, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice), and a separate Notice of Amendment (NOA) and Warning Letter
issued by letters on May 27, 2022. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Respondent had violated seven provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (Items 1 through 7),
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations, and
proposed a civil penalty in the amount of $986,400. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the
NOA alleged eight procedures were inadequate to assure the safe operation of a pipeline facility
and proposed that Respondent submit revised procedures to address the inadequacies identified.
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, the Warning Letter advised Colonial to address two
areas to avoid potential future enforcement action, but otherwise did not require further response
by Respondent.
During and following PHMSA’s inspections in 2020 and 2021, Respondent worked with the
Agency to better understand and proactively address the comments and concerns raised by
PHMSA, including those raised by PHMSA shortly before issuance of the Notice. With that as
background and in response to the Notice, Respondent requested a hearing to address the issues
presented by Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Notice, the associated proposed civil penalty, and the
associated proposed compliance order (PCO) obligations. Respondent did not contest Items 3



and 6 of the Notice. Item 6 of the Notice was brought as a warning requiring no further action
by Respondent. In response to the NOA, Respondent requested a hearing on Items 5 and 7 of the
NOA. Respondent did not contest Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the NOA and timely submitted
revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region, to address those Items.
In responding to the Notice and the NOA, Respondent asked for the opportunity to meet
informally with PHMSA to discuss the issues raised by the contested Notice and NOA Items.
Respondent and PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met on several occasions to discuss the
issues. Through those meetings, the Parties agreed on a resolution of all items except Item 5 of
the Notice and Item 5 of the NOA. Additionally, Respondent addressed all PCO obligations
with subsequent approval by PHMSA.
Joint stipulations were provided to the Presiding Official on November 29, 2022 regarding
Notice Items 1-4, 6-7 and NOA Items 1-4, 6-8 in advance of a Hearing limited to Item 5 of the
Notice and Item 5 of the NOA. A Hearing was held on November 30, 2022 in Kansas City,
Missouri regarding Notice Item 5 and NOA Item 5. After the Hearing, post-hearing briefings
were timely filed by the Parties. The Parties resumed informal settlement meetings in July 2023.
As a result of those discussions, and subject to the clarifications set forth below, the Parties have
agreed to resolve the allegations set forth in the Notice and NOA and Respondent has agreed to
pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $948,400.
Having agreed that settlement of the Notice and the NOA will avoid further administrative
proceedings or litigation of those Items 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 and NOA, 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 Consent
Agreement (Agreement), Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA's
actions in these proceedings and that the Notice and NOA state 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 as long as it is consistent with the
terms of this Agreement. Respondent waives all rights to contest the adequacy of the Notice or



the NOA, 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 and the NOA.
6. 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 system. 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 noted below, Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegation or
conclusion in the Notice, the NOA, or this Agreement. Respondent agrees for purposes of this
Agreement to accept the findings of violation and to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
11. During informal discussions, Respondent presented evidence showing that the
number of prior offenses during the 5-year period preceding the issuance of the Notice was
incorrectly calculated in the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report). As such,



PHMSA agrees to reduce the number of prior offenses during the 5-year period preceding the
Notice date from 4 to 3 for Items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
12. Except as set forth herein, this Agreement does not constitute a finding of
violation of any other federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of
any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of a violation of any
law, rule, regulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement or in future PHMSA enforcement actions.
13. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms.
II. Notice - Warning Item
14. Item 6: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
test the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) backup servers at the Linden,
Hebert, and Greensboro field operations control rooms at least once each calendar year, but at
intervals not to exceed 15 months, for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. This Item was brought as
a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation for any purpose. Respondent was
advised to promptly correct this issue going forward, and that a failure to do so may result in
future enforcement action. Respondent did not contest this Warning Item. Following PHMSA’s
inspection and without admission, Respondent developed procedures and performed tests of its
servers to meet the requirements of this section. The Director found that the procedures and tests
for Linden, Hebert and Greensboro are adequate.
III. Notice - Findings of Violation
15. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
follow its procedure, ADM-CPC-008 Rev.2 7/1/2019 Point-To-Point Verification, when
documenting a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment
at Linden Station in calendar year 2019. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of
violation for this Item, but, for purposes of settlement, agrees to accept the finding of violation.
As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered
by PHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against
Respondent. During informal discussions, Respondent, without admission, provided updated
procedures to address this Item and presented evidence showing that the failure to document a
point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment at Linden
Station was a records violation, not an activities violation. As such, PHMSA agrees to amend
the nature of the offense to a records violation.
16. Item 2: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
follow its procedures when conducting and documenting point-to-point verifications in Safety
Life Cycle Management (SLM) system for Safety Related Alarms to ensure alarms are accurate
and support safe pipeline operations. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of
violation for this Item, but has without admission updated its procedures to address this Item.
Further, for purposes of settlement, Respondent agrees to accept the finding of violation. As
such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered by
PHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.



17. Item 3: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
complete and document verifications of alarm set-point and alarm descriptions in compliance
with its procedures when associated field instruments were calibrated or changed for safety
related points at the Greensboro facility. The Notice also alleged that for the years 2017, 2018,
and 2019, Respondent was not able to verify that all safety-related alarm set-point values and
alarm descriptions were correct. Respondent did not contest this Item. As such, PHMSA finds a
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior
offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.
18. Item 4: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
provide a procedure to satisfy the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(3), which requires
verification of the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions when
associated field instruments are calibrated or changed and at least once each calendar year not to
exceed 15 months. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of violation for this Item
but has without admission updated its procedures to address this Item. Further, for purposes of
settlement, Respondent agrees to accept the finding of violation. As such, PHMSA finds a
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior
offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.
19. Item 5: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to
“test and verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation
of the pipeline safely at least once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months,” as required by
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3), at Linden and Hebert in 2017, 2018, and 2019, Greensboro in 2018
and 2019, Alpharetta in 2017, and Baton Rouge, Collins, and Charlotte in 2018, 2019, 2020.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s plan is required to include communications for
monitoring and manual operation of the pipeline which may include manual shut down and/or
start up in the event of SCADA loss as well as a method for leak detection.
20. Respondent maintains that, in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3), it
tested and verified its internal communication plan annually, not to exceed 15 months, through
actual events at other locations on its system. While testing based on actual events may be used
to satisfy the requirements of § 195.446(c)(3), PHMSA maintains that Respondent’s failure to
test and verify an internal communication plan at all of its control room locations is a violation.
Respondent expressly denies that its alleged failure to comply with the regulation was a
deliberate decision as set forth in the Violation Report. Further, PHMSA is not alleging that
Respondent did anything to cause the May 7, 2021, criminal cyberattack on Respondent’s
pipeline system and PHMSA acknowledges that the criminal cyberattack has no bearing on the
underlying facts giving rise to the allegation; i.e., the criminal cyberattack was not a factor
causing or contributing to the underlying alleged non-compliance.
21. Prior to the Notice, Respondent believed that testing and verification of the
internal communication plan was required in a single control room operating under the same
control room management plan. Based on discussions with PHMSA since issuance of the
Notice, Respondent acknowledges the importance of having an internal communication plan
which has been tested and verified at all control rooms to facilitate manual operations. Upon
further discussion between the Parties, Respondent (1) updated its plans and procedures to
address this Item, (2) tested and verified its internal communication plan in each of its control



rooms in 2022, and (3) has and will continue to test and verify its internal communication plan in
each applicable control room on an annual basis, not to exceed 15 months. Respondent provided
its updated plans and procedures and testing and verification records to Central Region for
review. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of violation for this Item, but, for
purposes of settlement, agrees to accept the finding of violation. As such, PHMSA finds a
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior
offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent.
22. Item 7: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2): The Notice alleged that Respondent, for the
control rooms in Greensboro, Hebert, and Linden, failed to identify and record, at least monthly,
all points affecting safety that had been taken off scan in the SCADA host; all points that have
had alarms inhibited; or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that
required for associated maintenance or operating activities for the years 2017, 2018 and
2019. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation of violation for this Item, but, for
purposes of settlement, agrees to accept the finding of violation. As such, PHMSA finds a
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2). This violation may be considered by PHMSA as a prior
offense in any future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent. During informal
discussions, Respondent without admission provided updated procedures to address PHMSA’s
concern and presented evidence showing that this offense was a records violation, not an
activities violation. Respondent also presented evidence showing that its failure to comply with
the regulation was not deliberate. As such, PHMSA agrees to amend the nature of the offense to
a records violation and reduce the culpability assigned to it.
IV. Civil Penalty
23. Item 1: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $31,100
for Item 1. As noted in paragraphs 11 and 15, during the informal meetings between the Parties,
Respondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was
incorrectly calculated in the Violation Report and that the nature of the offense was a records
violation. Based on the information provided, PHMSA agrees to reduce the proposed civil
penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $24,100, to be
paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective Date of this Agreement.
24. Item 2: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $31,700
for Item 2. As noted in paragraph 11, during the informal meetings between the Parties,
Respondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was
incorrectly calculated in the Violation Report. Based on the information provided, PHMSA
agrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced civil
penalty in the amount of $28,300, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective Date
of this Agreement.
25. Item 3: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $31,700
for Item 3. As noted in paragraph 11, during the informal meetings between the Parties,
Respondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was
incorrectly calculated in the Violation Report. Based on the information provided, PHMSA
agrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced civil



penalty in the amount of $28,300, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective Date
of this Agreement.
26. Item 5: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $846,300
for Item 5. Prior to the Notice, Respondent believed that testing and verification of the internal
communication plan was required in a single control room operating under the same control
room management plan and for this reason expressly denies that its alleged failure to comply
with the regulation was deliberate. As noted in paragraph 11, during the informal meetings
between the Parties, Respondent provided additional information showing that the number of
prior offenses was incorrectly calculated in the Violation Report. Based on the information
provided, PHMSA agrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a
reduced civil penalty in the amount of $842,900, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the
Effective Date of this Agreement.
27. Item 7: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $45,600
for Item 7. As noted in paragraphs 11 and 22, during the informal meetings between the Parties,
Respondent provided additional information showing that the number of prior offenses was
incorrectly calculated in the Violation Report, that the offense was a records violation, and that
its failure to comply with the regulation was not deliberate. Based on the information provided,
PHMSA agrees to reduce the proposed civil penalty. As such, Respondent shall pay a reduced
civil penalty in the amount of $24,800, to be paid in full no later than 30 days from the Effective
Date of this Agreement.
V. Compliance Order
28. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to
address the allegations of non-compliance. Respondent, in response to the Notice, requested an
informal discussion with PHMSA to discuss the terms of proposed compliance order. During
these discussions, Respondent, without admitting or denying the allegations of violation,
presented evidence of the remedial actions, including updated and revised procedures, it
undertook in response to Notice Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and associated PCO actions. Based upon
these remedial actions and revised procedures, PHMSA finds the terms of the proposed
compliance order for these Items have been satisfied.
29. Item 5: The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the
allegation of non-compliance. Respondent, without admitting or denying the allegation of
violation, completed and provided documentation, which has been approved by the Director,
Central Region, of Respondent’s tests and verifications of its internal communication plan to
provide adequate means for manual operation for all eleven (11) CRM control rooms (including
Alpharetta and field) in 2022, and for five (5) of the eleven (11) control rooms thus far in 2023.
Based upon these remedial actions, PHMSA finds the terms of the proposed compliance order
for Item 5 have been satisfied.



VI. NOA – Findings of Inadequacy
30. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to
define the roles and responsibilities of controllers related to time absent from the console when
conducting a shift turnover during normal operations, and the procedures were therefore
inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(1). Respondent did not contest this allegation
of inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The
Director found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.
31. Item 2: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to
provide specific actions for the controller, or control room staff, to take including
communicating with others, and were therefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. §
195.446(b)(3). Respondent did not contest this allegation of inadequacy and provided revised
procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The Director found that the procedures,
as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.
32. Item 3: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to have
a shift hand-over process for instances when an outgoing controller was not/unable to be present
and was therefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(4). Respondent did not
contest this allegation of inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director,
Central Region. The Director found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further
action is necessary.
33. Item 4: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(4): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s
procedure at the Greensboro Control room for periodically changing physical responsibility
failed to cover the local desk operation where the pipeline is shut down, and when the console
logged out and controllers leave the console unattended on weeknights and weekends, and was
therefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(b)(4). The NOA also alleged there was
no alternative in the procedure for monitoring alarms normally assigned to the local desk during
the unattended console times. Respondent did not contest this allegation of inadequacy and
provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The Director found that
the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.
34. Item 5: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent failed to
address the testing and verification of the internal communications plan to facilitate manual
operation and that the procedures were therefore inadequate to comply with the requirements of
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3). Respondent neither admits nor denies the NOA allegation, but for
purposes of settlement, has amended its CRM plans and certain site-specific procedures, which
have been approved by the Director, Central Region, to require testing and verification of an
internal communication plan to facilitate manual operations of the pipeline safely once each
calendar year, not to exceed fifteen (15) months. Specifically, the Director, Central Region,
reviewed and approved Respondent’s amended CRM manual and related attachments regarding
the internal communication plan for manual operation. The operator provided certain amended
site-specific operating procedures for each of Respondent’s eleven (11) control rooms and one
(1) representative records log, which were reviewed and approved by PHMSA. For the amended
site-specific operating procedures for the five (5) control rooms tested in 2023 using
Respondent’s amended 2022 procedures (i.e., Collins, Charlotte, Greensboro, Linden, and



Woodbury), the Director found that these plans and procedures reviewed, as revised, are
adequate to provide adequate means for manual operations and no further action is necessary as
to those specific procedures. Respondent will provide the remaining revised site-specific
operating procedures associated with six (6) of its control rooms (i.e., Alpharetta, Baton Rouge,
Hebert, Houston, Lake Charles, and Port Arthur) to the Director, Central Region, for review and
approval within forty-five (45) calendar days of the Effective Date. The Central Region will
review and notify Respondent whether the revised procedures are adequate within thirty (30)
business days of their receipt.
35. Item 6: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s procedure
for testing the backup SCADA systems failed to require testing the field servers and was
therefore inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4). Respondent did not contest this
allegation of inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central
Region. The Director found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is
necessary.
36. Item 7: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s
procedure for the monthly review of safety related alarms failed to define the required process of
review. Respondent neither admits nor denies the NOA allegation, but, for purposes of
settlement, agreed to amend its procedures. During the Parties’ informal discussions,
Respondent without admission provided PHMSA an updated version of its procedures that
address the alleged inadequacy. As such, PHMSA agrees to withdraw the allegation of
inadequacy for this Item.
37. Item 8: 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h): The NOA alleged that Respondent’s controller
training program (CRM Plan Revision 13.0 7/2/2020) failed to require a review at least once
each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed fifteen (15) months, and was therefore
inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h). Respondent did not contest this allegation of
inadequacy and provided revised procedures for review by the Director, Central Region. The
Director found that the procedures, as revised, are adequate and no further action is necessary.
VII. Enforcement
38. 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
under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $239,142 per violation for each day the violation continues (as
may be adjusted for inflation) 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.
VIII. Force Majeure
39. Respondent agrees to perform all the terms of this Agreement within the
timeframes established within this Agreement, including pursuant to modifications under Section
XI, unless performance is delayed by a force majeure. For purposes of this Agreement, a force



majeure is defined by an event arising from causes beyond the control of the Respondent, or any
entity controlled by Respondent or Respondent’s contractors, which delays or prevents
performance of any obligation under this Agreement despite Respondent’s commercially
reasonable efforts to fulfill the obligation.
40. If a force majeure event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of
any term of this Agreement beyond the approved timeframe, Respondent shall notify the
Director, in writing, within five (5) business days of when Respondent knew that the event might
cause a delay. Such notice shall ident
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 49357