PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF420195004_Operator Response to Notice_05032019.pdf#

420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: chris.chandler@paalp.com September 29, 2025 Chris R. Chandler Executive Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. 333 Clay Street, Suite 1900 Houston, Texas 77002 RE: CPF 4-2019-5004-NOPV Dear Mr. Chandler: On October 6, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains) a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Final Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Pursuant to § 60117, PHMSA performed inspections of the work required by the Compliance Order in CPF No. 4-2019-5004 on the Cotton Draw Pipeline, operated by Plains. As a result, on May 17, 2024, PHMSA issued to Plains a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO or Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions existed on Plains’ Cotton Draw Pipeline that posed an integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. After issuance of the NOPSO, the parties engaged in good-faith settlement discussions that resulted in the issuance of a Consent Order on July 8, 2025. An inspection of the corrective measures under the Consent Order for CPF No. 4-2024-029-NOPSO is ongoing. Notwithstanding CPF No. 4-2024-029-NOPSO and the corrective measures described in the Consent Order, based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of the Final Order for CPF No. 4-2019-5004. 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, Bryan Lethcoe Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

420195004_Closure Letter_09292025_(17-156608S)_text.pdf, page 2cc: Patrick Hodgins, Vice President, Health, Safety, and Environment, NA, pdhodgins@paalp.com Ngiabi Gicuhi, Director, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance, ngicuhi@paalp.com Kevin Cunningham, HSE Regulatory Compliance Programs, khcunningham@paalp.com#

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED January 31, 2019 Dean Gore Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance Plains All-American Pipeline, L.P. 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77002 CPF 4-2019-5004 Dear Mr. Gore: On August 7 – 11, 2017, representatives 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.) conducted a first operating inspection of the Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains) Cotton Draw Pipeline in Midland, Texas. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:#

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf, page 21. §195.214 – Welding Procedures (a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under Section 5, Section 12, or Appendix A of API Std 1104 or Section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. (b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure is used. Plains failed to construct the Cotton Draw Pipeline in accordance with written specifications by using an unqualified welding procedure. During the PHMSA inspection, Plains provided two welding procedures, CS-G4265L205 and CS-G4265M211, utilized for the Cotton Draw Pipeline. The welding procedures were for “API 5L X42 to API 5L X65” and “API 5L X65 to API 5L X42 and lower yield strength materials,” respectively; however, the Cotton Draw Pipeline was constructed of API 5L X52 pipe. The qualification test records provided indicated that the qualification tests were performed on a completed weld that was constructed of both X42 grade steel and X65 grade steel. Plains indicated that the procedure was qualified for use on all grades of steel between X42 and X65. However, API Standard 1104 requires separate procedure qualification tests for any base material X65 and greater. Consequently, this test did not qualify the procedure for welding X52 material. In order for Plains to use this procedure, it must have been qualified using API 5L X52 pipe as the base material, or another material in group (b) that is consistent with Section 5.4.2.2 in API Standard 1104. These procedures must have destructive testing coupons. Plains did not have any destructive testing records that showed the procedure was correctly qualified for the intended use. Inspections of records provided by Plains indicates that these two procedures were used for nearly every production weld on the Cotton Draw Pipeline, with the exception of specific tie in welds. 2. §195.222 – Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding operators Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than a edition listed in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under an earlier edition. (a) No welder or welding operator may weld with a welding process unless, within the preceding 6 months, the welder or welding operator has (1) engaged in welding with that process; and (2) had one weld tested and found acceptable under section 9 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3. 2#

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf, page 3Plains failed to ensure that production welds made on the Cotton Draw pipeline were made by welders who were properly qualified. A review of the welder qualifications indicated that 13 welders performed production welds on the Cotton Draw pipeline and Plains did not have qualification records to validate that they were qualified to the procedure used. These welders were identified on the Form 911 as completing production welds, but Plains did not have welder qualifications to support those welders. 3. §195.430 – Firefighting Equipment Each Operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be (a) In proper operating condition at all times (b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear; and (c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire. Plains failed to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment was provided at each pump station and breakout tank area. Plains O&M Procedure 419 for firefighting equipment requires that all pump stations and breakout tank areas be equipped with firefighting equipment. Additionally, Plains Procedure P-195.430 requires that all firefighting equipment be inspected monthly, and that annual inspections should be conducted by an approved agent of the extinguisher manufacturer. Plains failed to ensure that monthly and annual inspections were performed. The Cotton Draw Pipeline originates from an area that is designated as “Section 17.” There is a pump at this location to initiate the flow from the gathering lines to the Cotton Draw Station, where another pump is located. During the field inspection at Section 17, no fire extinguishers were available for use. The Cotton Draw pipeline terminates at the Stateline Injection Site, where it ties into the Stateline 20” pipeline. The Stateline Injection Site has pumps on site, and extinguishers located at the station did not have inspection tags denoting the extinguishers were in proper operational condition, and could not provide records showing the extinguishers had been inspected. 4. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used. 3#

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf, page 4Plains failed to install a thermal relief valve (TRV 432), located at Section 29 (MM 1) prior to th operation of the Cotton Draw Pipeline. During the PHMSA inspection the valve was found to be locked out and isolated from the mainline. A review of the overpressure device inspection form (Plains Form 301) indicates that the item was “not installed” and “removed from field” on April 5, 2017, approximately 5 months after the startup date of the pipeline. Records indicate that this pipeline was operating without the valve from startup until it was installed at some time between April 5, 2017 and August 10, 2017 (date of PHMSA inspection). Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $75,600 as follows: Item number PENALTY Item 2 $75,600 Warning Items With respect to item 4 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action. Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 1 and 3, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the 4#

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf, page 5document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-5004 and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Mary L. McDaniel, P.E. Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 5#

420195004_NOPV PCP PCO_01312019_text.pdf, page 6PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains All American Pipeline L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to welding completed with inadequately qualified welding procedures, Plains must perform destructive testing on a statistically significant number of girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline to show that the welds have the required strength and mechanical properties for the application. The proposed testing plan must include specific designation of the welds to be tested, the analysis showing that the number of welds to be tested is statistically significant to the number of total welds made, the procedures that Plains proposes to be used to cut out and test the welds, and the qualified welding procedure that will be used to re-weld the pipeline. The proposed testing plan must be submitted to the PHMSA Southwest Region Director for approval prior to initiating the plan. If any of these welds fail destructive testing, the number of welds tested must be expanded as specified by the Southwest Region Director to include an additional number of welds made by that welder. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, the Operator must modify its procedures to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment is installed prior to the operation of any pipeline. Provide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of Items 1 and 2 of the Proposed Compliance Order within 30 days following the date of the Final Order. Submit the documentation showing completion of the testing and weld repairs within 120 days following approval of the plan by the Southwest Region Director. It is requested (not mandated) that Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Southwest Region Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 6#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOctober 6, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: hpefanis@paalp.com Mr. Harry Pefanis President Plains Pipeline, LP 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas77002 Re: CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Dear Mr. Pefanis: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $75,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Plains Pipeline, LP to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Wm. Dean Gore, Jr., Vice President, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance, Plains Pipeline, LP, dgore@paalp.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_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 ) Plains Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2019-5004 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From August 7 through 11, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Respondent), in Midland, Texas. Plains owns and operates a network of hazardous liquid pipeline transportation, terminalling, storage, and gathering assets in the United States and Canada.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 31, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205 (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $75,600 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action. After requesting and receiving an extension of time, Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated May 3, 2019 (Response). The company contested two of the allegations of violation, and requested that the proposed compliance order be modified or eliminated and the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: 1 Plains website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/ (last accessed September 28, 2020).#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 2 Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states: § 195.214 Welding procedures. (a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of [American Petroleum Institute Standard (API Std)] 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by failing to perform welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under Section 5, Section 12, or Appendix A or B of API Std 1104. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to construct its Cotton Draw Pipeline, which was built with API 5L X52 pipe, using qualified welding procedures under Section 5 of API Std 1104 for this type of pipe. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.2 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by failing to perform welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under API Std 1104. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states: § 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding operators. (a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may not requalify under that earlier edition. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to use qualified welders during welding activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that production welds on Plains’ Cotton Draw pipeline were welded by 13 welders who were not properly qualified under API Std 1104. In its Response, Plains contested this allegation of violation. It argued that the 13 welders referenced in the Notice were qualified to perform welds under its procedure CS-G4265L205, 2 In its Response, Plains stated that its “welding procedures CS-G4265M211 and CS-G4265L205 were qualified by welding API 5L X42 to X65 pipe, and also confirms that these welding procedures were applied to API 5L X52 pipe for the Cotton Draw Pipeline. Plains recognizes that this is a violation of the base material groupings of API 1104 Section 5.4.2.2.”#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 3 which Plains argued was requalified to demonstrate that it met all the requirements of API Std 1104 to produce acceptable welds with sufficient mechanical properties for “the base material group consisting of greater than X42 but less than X65 pipe.”3 Plains argued that substitution of X52 pipe did not result in uncertainty in the welder’s skill or range of qualification since base material is not an essential variable.4 I disagree. Welders cannot be qualified on an unqualified procedure. API Std 1104 Section 6.1 states that “[t]he purpose of the welder qualification test is to determine the ability of welders to make sound butt or fillet welds using previously qualified procedures”5 (emphasis added). In its Response to Item 1, Plains did not contest that it violated § 195.214(a) by failing to perform welding in accordance with welding procedures qualified under API Std 1104. Therefore, since Plains used unqualified welding procedures during welding activity on X52 pipe on the Cotton Draw Pipeline, and the welders who performed the work were qualified to that same procedure, the welders were not qualified pursuant to § 195.222(a). Plains’ assertion that subsequent testing demonstrated the sufficiency of the welds does not negate the underlying violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to use qualified welders during welding activity on its Cotton Draw Pipeline. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states: § 195.430 Firefighting equipment. Each operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be- (a) In proper operating condition at all times; (b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is clear; and (c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains failed to have a fire extinguisher at Section 17 where the Cotton Draw Pipeline originates and a pump is located. Further, at the line’s termination site where pumps are located, the company also failed to have fire extinguishers with inspection tags showing that they were in proper operating condition. Finally, the Notice alleged that Plains could not provide records demonstrating that the fire extinguishers had been inspected pursuant to the company’s written procedures.6 3 Response, at 4. 4 “Essential variables” are defined as welding variables that have a profound influence on the strength and mechanical properties of the weld. A welding procedure must be requalified whenever there is an essential variable change. 5 American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,” 20th ed., Oct. 2005, (including errata/addendum (July 2007) and errata 2 (2008)) at Section 6.1. 6 According to the Notice, Plains’ Procedure P-195.430 requires that all firefighting equipment be inspected monthly.#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 4 In its Response, Plains contested this allegation of violation. The company noted that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, these sites were remote and unstaffed and that “adequate fire protection was provided by portable handheld fire extinguishers of various sizes dependent on the type of Plains operations and maintenance vehicle.”7 Plains stated that its staff carried portable fire extinguishers that could be used to control small, incipient fires in emergencies and that adequate equipment “was present any time operations and maintenance personnel were on site.” 8 Finally, the company noted that after the PHMSA inspection, it installed fire extinguishers at the requisite sites and amended its procedures to require the installation of adequate firefighting equipment prior to operation.9 I do not find the additional information and explanations provided by Plains to be persuasive. First, there is no exception to the requirement for maintaining adequate firefighting equipment if the location is remote or unstaffed. Plains fails to meet its regulatory obligation by providing firefighting equipment only when its staff is present on site. The regulation requires that adequate equipment be maintained “at each pump station and breakout tank area,” not in vehicles or only when company personnel are on site. Second, Plains’ post-inspection remedial measures, including installing fire extinguishers and amending its procedures, do not mitigate the underlying violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station on the Cotton Draw Pipeline. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.10 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $75,600 for the violations cited above. 7 Response, at 6. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 5 Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), for failing to use qualified welders during welding activity on its Cotton Draw Pipeline. In its Response, Plains argued that if this item were not reduced to a warning item, then the penalty should be reduced for several reasons. First, under Section E4 of the Violation Report, the company argues that the nature of the non-compliance should be considered a record- keeping, rather than an “activities,” violation. I disagree. Plains did not simply fail to maintain necessary records. Instead, the company performed welding activity using unqualified welders. Second, Plains argued that the duration of the violation under the “gravity” portion of Section E5 of the Violation Report should be amended from “greater than 10 days” to a single day, since welding qualification takes less than one day and the welds were all sound. This item, however, does not allege a violation of a one-day qualification testing process. Instead, it involves welding activities performed by unqualified welders, a non-compliance that persisted for a period of time longer than 10 days. Finally, Plains argued that the instances of violation under Section E6 of the Violation Report should be reduced from 13 to one. However, as noted above, I found that the 13 welders who performed welding activity on the Cotton Draw Pipeline were not qualified. Therefore, since 13 unqualified welders individually performed welding on the pipeline, the number of instances of violation is 13. Plains also alleged that the selection for the gravity assessment criteria under Section E6 should be changed from “the violation occurred in areas that are not in a high consequence area (HCA) or not in an HCA ‘could affect’ segment” to “the violation occurred; however, pipeline safety was minimally affected.” I do not believe, however, that pipeline safety was minimally impacted. Proper welding is critical to the safe operation of a hazardous liquid pipeline, and must be performed using qualified welders and qualified procedures. Plains failed to satisfy both requirements. Therefore, I find no compelling reason to lower the gravity selection. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $75,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a). Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $75,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States.#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 6 COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 3 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.430, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. With regard to the violation of § 195.214(a) (Item 1), Respondent argued that the compliance terms should be withdrawn or modified.11 Specifically, Plains alleged that, despite not using qualified welding procedures for API 5L X52 pipe, the welds on its Cotton Draw Pipeline have the required API Std 1104 strength and mechanical properties to “produce a sound and satisfactory girth weld” for joining the X52 pipe and do not pose a safety hazard.12 Specifically, Plains explained that in November 2015, it requalified one of the welding procedures utilized during the Cotton Draw Pipeline construction, CS-G4265L205, using 20-inch diameter by 0.500 wall thickness X60 pipe, to demonstrate that the welding procedure met all requirements of API Std 1104 to produce acceptable welds with sufficient mechanical properties for the base material group consisting of greater than X42 but less than X65 pipe.13 Plains then conducted additional testing using these newly qualified procedures to confirm that the test welds met the criteria in API Std 1104.14 Further, Plains noted that after the commissioning period, pipeline failure rates decrease, and girth welds are unlikely to fail unless subjected to severe axial strains from external loads.15 Plains also argued that removal and destructive testing of “in service” welds, as proposed by the Director in the Proposed Compliance Order, would be unnecessary, unjustified, and result in a greater safety threat to people and the environment than the actions already taken by the company to demonstrate the safety margins of the X52 girth welds.16 In her Region Recommendation, the Director noted that although Plains attempted to requalify the welding procedure used during construction to demonstrate that the welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline met the criteria in API Std 1104, Plains changed an essential variable in its new welding procedures, which nullifies the testing results. Specifically, Plains changed the range of 11 Plains also argued that Section E3-Proposed Action in the Violation Report should be changed from “Proposed Compliance Order” to “Warning Item” for Item 1. Response, at 1. In its Response, however, Plains did not contest this violation and confirmed that it did not use qualified welding procedures on its Cotton Draw Pipeline. Therefore, I see no reason to reduce Item 1 to a warning item. 12 Response, at 2 and Attachment 1 (CS-G4265L205 qualification procedure). 13 Response, at 2. 14 Id., at Attachment 1. 15 Id. 16 Id.#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 7 speed of travel, an essential variable, in its new procedure.17 Therefore, the Director recommended that Plains requalify the welding procedure used during original construction in order to confirm that its welds are safe. I agree. By changing an essential variable, the requalified test conducted by Plains in November 2015 still does not offer proof that the girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline have the required strength and mechanical properties necessary for X52 pipe. In order to demonstrate the welds used were qualified, Plains must requalify the welding procedure per API 1104 using the same essential variables that most likely approximate those used to construct the Cotton Draw pipeline and replicate those conditions in a controlled test laboratory setting. However, I agree with Plains that excavating the existing welds and performing destructive testing may impose additional, unnecessary risks such as potentially damaging adjacent pipe segments during excavation. Additionally, destructive testing will require Plains to add two new girth welds to replace each in-service weld removed for testing. I believe removal and destructive testing of existing welds should only be done if the qualification of the welding procedure that replicates the welding process used during original construction fails. In the event the welding procedure fails qualification, then Plains must destructively test a statistically significant number of girth welds on the pipeline. Any potential risk associated with excavation will be outweighed by the safety benefit gained from ensuring that the welds that could not be adequately qualified in a controlled environment still have sufficient strength to perform well in the field and do not pose a heightened risk of failure. With regard to the violation of § 195.430 (Item 3), Respondent argued that the compliance terms should be withdrawn or modified. Specifically, Plains noted that it had amended its procedures to require installation of firefighting equipment prior to operation of any new pump station or breakout facility.18 However, the regulation requires this equipment “at each pump station and breakout tank area” regardless of the age of the facility. For the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn and is modified as set forth below. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195.214(a) (Item 1), Respondent must utilize project X52 pipe to qualify a welding procedure utilizing the same essential variables that were used during the construction of the Cotton Draw pipeline. The materials used to qualify the welding procedure must include the welding electrodes used during original construction. The welding procedure must be qualified per API Std 1104 three (3) times by different welders in a laboratory setting. Plains must submit its proposed qualification plan to the Director within 30 days after receipt of the Final Order. Once approved by the Director, Plains must submit documentation showing results of the weld procedure 17 Response, at Attachment 1. 18 Response, at 6.#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 9CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 8 qualification tests within five working days of the third test. Further, the Director shall be notified of the qualification date(s) 10 calendar days in advance in order to give PHMSA staff the opportunity to attend the testing on site. If any of the welding procedure tests cannot be destructively qualified in a laboratory setting per API 1104, Plains must notify the Director in writing. Respondent must then perform destructive testing on 10 girth welds on the Cotton Draw Pipeline at locations where external forces may occur (e.g. slopes, road crossings) to show that the welds have the required strength and mechanical properties for the application. The proposed testing plan must include specific designation of the welds to be tested, proposed procedures to cut out and test the welds, and a qualified welding procedure that will be used to re-weld the pipeline. The testing plan must also include bend and tensile tests as required by API 1104. These welds must be randomly chosen throughout the construction projects timeline, given the conditions set forth above. Welds selected and test coupon locations can be chosen based upon radiography to avoid acceptable imperfections in production girth welds, which may cause erroneous mechanical test results. Results of the weld locations, weld identifications, radiograph review, tensile test data, and bend test data will be reported in writing to the Director. Plains must notify the Director in writing when girth welds are being removed from the pipeline and when coupon testing will be taking place. If any of these welds fail destructive testing, the number of welds tested must be expanded, as specified by the Director, to include an additional number of welds made by that welder. Plains must submit its proposed testing plan to the Director within 30 days after notifying the Director that its qualification tests failed. Once approved by the Director, Plains must submit documentation showing completion of the destructive testing and weld repairs within 120 days of approval. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.430 (Item 3), Respondent must further revise its procedures to require maintenance of “adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area,” as required by § 195.430. This shall not be limited to new pump stations and breakout tank areas. Plains must submit its revised procedure to PHMSA for Director approval within 30 days after receipt of the Final Order. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for#

420195004_Final Order_10062020_text.pdf, page 10CPF No. 4-2019-5004 Page 9 each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. WARNING ITEM With respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a warning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for: 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. October 6, 2020 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#