KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC — Notice of Amendment

party submissionOfficial PDF52021002NOA_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_11142022_(20-191754).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF52021002NOA_Operator Post-Hearing Submission_04042022_(20-191754).pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF52021002NOA_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Statement of Issues_09142021_(20-191754).pdf#

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF AMENDMENT VIA E-MAIL TO MR. JESSE ARENIVAS August 16, 2021 Mr. Jesse Arenivas President, CO2 Pipelines Kinder Morgan CO2 1001 Louisiana St, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77002 CPF 5-2021-002-NOA Dear Mr. Arenivas: From September 28 through October 2, 2020, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Kinder Morgan CO2’s (Kinder Morgan) welding, certification, inspection, and operator qualification procedures. On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Kinder Morgan’s plans or procedures, as described below: 1. § 195.202 - Compliance with specifications or standards. Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. § 195.204 – Inspection - general. Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or pipeline systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any operator#

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 2personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An operator must not use operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator personnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits the operator from inspecting construction tasks with operator personnel who are involved in other construction tasks. Kinder Morgan failed to have a procedure specifying what training and qualifications are required by inspectors for the specific phase of construction they are inspecting (i.e. welding inspectors or coating inspectors), pursuant to § 195.204. Kinder Morgan does have a document that they claim they are using to evaluate training and qualifications, but its Operations & Maintenance manual neither explains the procedure nor identifies where the document can be found. Kinder Morgan must develop a procedure for determining what training and qualifications are needed in the phase of construction to be inspected, including what documentation or records will be maintained. 2. § 195.208 - Welding of supports and braces. Supports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage. Kinder Morgan does not have a procedure for welding supports directly to the pipeline or a statement that prohibits supports being welded directly to the pipeline. Kinder Morgan must develop a procedure for supports or braces welded directly to the pipe operating at a pressure below 100 psi, and a statement prohibiting supports or braces welded directly to the pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than 100 psi. 3. § 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. Kinder Morgan does have a procedure for welder qualifications located in its Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual (L O&M), Procedure #L O&M 401 – Welder Qualification and Testing, Revised March 11, 2020. 2#

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 3In the procedure, Section 5 – Core Information and Requirements, Subsection 5.1 – Qualification Requirements, it states, “[a] welder shall meet one of these eligibility requirements to be tested as a welder: a. The person has passed a similar test recently.” However, the procedure fails to define what “similar” or “recently” means. Section 5, Subsection 5.8 – Retesting Due to Conditions Beyond the Welder’s Control is confusing and fails to follow the re-testing flowchart found in Attachment 3 – Testing Procedure Chart, found on page 13/13 of the procedure. Attachment 3 – Testing Procedure Chart is confusing. The flow chart has circular paths and fails to clearly show the process of how welders are qualified. Finally, the procedure fails to identify or mention the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Standard 1104 – Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities, and the appropriate sections of 1104 that are incorporated by reference for qualifying welders. Kinder Morgan must revise its procedure to clearly identify the process used to qualify all welders working on Kinder Morgan assets. 4. § 195.234 - Welds: Nondestructive testing. (a) A weld may be nondestructively tested by any process that will clearly indicate any defects that may affect the integrity of the weld. Kinder Morgan’s Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual, Procedure 454 – Non-Destructive Requirements, Revised August 18, 2018, Section 2.0 – Core Information and Requirements, Subsection 2.2 – Codes and Standards (Page 2/9) incorrectly identifies and implies multiple “approved DOT” procedures and/or standards which are not Incorporated by Reference (IBR) in the applicable Pipeline Safety Regulations. Specifically, Subsection 2.2 states: “NDT testing shall conform to, or exceed requirements of, the following codes and standards, as applicable:” Item D - ASME Section V - Nondestructive Examination, most recent DOT-approved edition - This section is not IBR and the standard being used isn't clear. Item G - ASTM E709 - Standard Recommended Practice for Magnetic Particle, most recent DOT-approved edition - This standard is not IBR. Item H - ASTM E165 - Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrate Inspection Method, most recent DOT-approved edition - This standard is not IBR. Item I - ASTM E142 - Standard Method for Controlling Quality of Radiographic Testing, most recent DOT-approved edition - This standard is not IBR. Item J - ASTM E1444-01: Standard Practice for Magnetic Particle Examination, most recent edition. 3#

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 4Additionally, the Procedure's Codes and Standards section mentions most recently approved DOT editions for Items D, G, H, and I, however, PHMSA does not Incorporate by Reference these mentioned standards. Procedure 454 - Section 2.4 Magnetic Particle Test Method does not mention any acceptable standards or explicitly state that magnetic particle testing must meet Section 9.4.2 of API 1104 for acceptability. Kinder Morgan must revise its Non-Destructive Requirements Procedure to clearly state the correct acceptable standards that will be used for nondestructive testing. 5. § 195.234 - Welds: Nondestructive testing. (a) … (g) At pipeline tie-ins, including tie-ins of replacement sections, 100 percent of the girth welds must be nondestructively tested. Kinder Morgan’s Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual (L O&M), Procedure 406 – Weld Inspection and Testing, Revised April 8, 2020, Section 3.2 – Non-Destructive Testing, Section 3.2.1 – Non-Destructive Testing in the United States mentions the requirements for § 195.234(d) and (e) but fails to state or identify the requirements under § 195.234 (g) for tie-ins. However, this code requirement is found in Procedure 454 – Non-Destructive Requirements, Table 1. Kinder Morgan must revise its procedure to include all the requirements found in § 195.234, and correctly reference where the reader will find all non-destructive testing requirements for welds. 6. § 195.216 - Welding: Miter joints. A miter joint is not permitted (not including deflections up to 3 degrees that are caused by misalignment). Kinder Morgan’s Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual (L O&M), Procedure 456 – Welding and Fabrication, Revised April 8, 2020, Section 5 – Welding Procedure – General, Item 5.18 is worded oddly and unclearly. The operator appears to be allowing installation of miter joints under the pre-approval of a Kinder Morgan representative but fails to identify a process for this approval. Kinder Morgan must revise its procedure to clearly identify a process for allowing installation of miter joints and the procedure for installation, or revise the procedure to state Kinder Morgan prohibits the use of miter joints. 7. § 195.404 - Maps and records. (a) … (c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified: 4#

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 5(1) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe shall be maintained for the useful life of the pipe. While reviewing project files for in-line inspection (ILI) repairs for sleeve installation and project files for pipeline replacements, the files failed to clearly identify which contractor and/or employee performed specific covered tasks. While operator qualification (OQ) records for contractor and employees were provided in the project files, compliance could not be determined due the records failing to indicate who performed each covered task. Kinder Morgan must develop or identify a clear process that will document which qualified personnel performs each covered task. Response to this Notice This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. 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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being 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 document 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, revised procedures, or a request for a hearing under §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 an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed. It is requested (not mandated) that Kinder Morgan CO2 maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2021-002-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy 5#

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 6in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Dustin Hubbard Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 D. Fehling (#20-191754) 6#

52021002NOA_Closure Letter_06292023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO MR. DARRELL RICKETSON June 29, 2023 Mr. Darrell Ricketson Chief Operating Officer Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77002 CPF 5-2021-002-NOA Closure Letter Dear Mr. Ricketson: On October 25, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC, an Order Directing Amendment in the above- referenced case. This Order included a requirement to amend your procedures. Based on our review of the documentation you provided on May 3, 2023, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this 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, Dustin Hubbard Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 D. Fehling (#20-191754) Jaime Hernandez, Director Engineering, Codes and Standards#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOctober 25, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: darrell ricketson@kindermorgan.com Mr. Darrell Ricketson Chief Operating Officer Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77002 Re: CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA Dear Mr. Ricketson: Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of inadequate procedures, finds that certain amended procedures provided by Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC are adequate, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC to address a remaining inadequacy in its written procedures in accordance with the pipeline safety regulations. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt 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 (Order Directing Amendment) cc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Jaime Hernandez, Director, Engineering, Codes and Standards, Kinder Morgan, jaime_hernandez@kindermorgan.com#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 2Ms. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, jessica_toll@kindermorgan.com Ms. Annie Cook, Esq., Bracewell LLP, Counsel Kinder Morgan, annie.cook@bracewell.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT From September 28, 2020 through October 2, 2020, pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the written procedures for welding, certification, inspection, and Operator Qualification (OQ) procedures of Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC (KM CO2 or Respondent). KM CO2 is the largest transporter of carbon dioxide in North America, transporting approximately 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of CO2 from its source fields in Southwest Colorado to New Mexico and West Texas. 1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated August 16, 2021, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). The Notice alleged seven instances of inadequacies in Respondent’s written operating and maintenance procedures and proposed requiring KM CO2 to amend its procedures to comply with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. KM CO2 responded to the Notice by letter dated September 14, 2021 (Response). KM CO2 did not contest six of the seven alleged inadequacies and submitted revised procedures to address these inadequacies. With respect to the seventh alleged inadequacy, Respondent contested the allegation and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held via videoconference on March 3, 2022, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. Respondent provided additional written material prior to the hearing on February 21, 2022 (Pre-hearing submission) and following the hearing on April 4, 2022 (Post-hearing submission). The Director submitted a post-hearing recommendation on May 4, 2022 (Recommendation). 1 KM CO2 website, available at https://www.kindermorgan.com/Operations/CO2/Index (last accessed Aug. 31, 2022).#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 4STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.206(a), a Regional Director begins a proceeding to determine whether an operator’s plans or procedures required under parts 192, 193, 195, and 199 are inadequate to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility by issuing a Notice of Amendment. The Notice specifies the alleged inadequacies and the proposed revisions. After considering all material presented by an operator in writing or at the hearing in response to a Notice of Amendment, the Associate Administrator determines whether the plans or procedures are inadequate as alleged and orders the required amendment if they are inadequate or withdraws the Notice if they are not. In determining the adequacy of an operator’s plans or procedures, the Associate Administrator may consider: relevant available pipeline safety data; whether the plans or procedures are appropriate for the particular type of pipeline transportation or facility and for the location of the facility; the reasonableness of the plans or procedures; and the extent to which the plans or procedures contribute to public safety, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. 2 FINDINGS OF INADEQUACY The Notice alleged that Respondent’s written operating and maintenance procedures were inadequate under 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.202 and 195.204, which state: § 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards. Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. § 195.204 Inspection - general. Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or pipeline systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any operator personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An operator must not use operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator personnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits the operator from inspecting construction tasks with operator personnel who are involved in other construction tasks. The Notice alleged that KM CO2 did not have a procedure specifying what training and qualifications are required by inspectors for the specific phase of construction they are 2 49 C.F.R. § 190.206 (b) and (c). Paragraph (c) provides that an order directing amendment of an operator’s plans or procedures under paragraph (a) is in addition to, and may be used in conjunction with, other appropriate enforcement actions prescribed in Part 190.#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 5inspecting. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.208, which states: § 195.208 Welding of supports and braces. Supports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage. The Notice alleged that KM CO2 did not have a procedure for welding supports directly to the pipeline or a statement that prohibits supports being welded directly to the pipeline. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 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 KM CO2’s procedures for welding qualifications did not clearly identify the process used to qualify each welder. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 6Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.234(a), which states: § 195.234 Welds: Nondestructive testing. (a) A weld may be nondestructively tested by any process that will clearly indicate any defects that may affect the integrity of the weld. The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for nondestructive testing did not accurately identify the correct acceptance standards to be used in the testing. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.234(g), which states: § 195.234 Welds: Nondestructive testing. (a) … (g) At pipeline tie-ins, including tie-ins of replacement sections, 100 percent of the girth welds must be nondestructively tested. The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for nondestructive testing did not include requirements for tie-ins in the section of the procedures where they should appear. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.216, which states: § 195.216 Welding: Miter joints. A miter joint is not permitted (not including deflections up to 3 degrees that are caused by misalignment). The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for welding did not clearly indicate when the installation of miter joints is restricted or prohibited. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected.#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 7Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item. Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(1), which states: § 195.404 Maps and records. (a)… (c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified: (1) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe shall be maintained for the useful life of the pipe. The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s did not have procedures for creating and maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed certain tasks involved in pipeline replacements and sleeve installations following in-line inspections. Specifically, the Notice alleged that KM CO2 did not have procedures for maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations. Section 195.404(c)(1) states that “the date, location, and description” of each repair must be maintained in the operator’s records. At the hearing, OPS argued that while the regulations did not expressly define the word “description, ” the plain meaning of the term is “the who, what, when, where, and why” of the subject being be described and that the “who” had particular relevance to this case. 3 OPS argued that since KM CO2’s procedures did not include recording the name of the individual who performed the repair, the “who” was missing and therefore Respondent did not comply with the requirement to fully describe the repair.4 KM CO2 strongly disagreed that the word “description” should be defined in the manner suggested by OPS. Respondent pointed to a dictionary definition of this term as meaning “kind or character” or “a statement or account giving the characteristics of someone or something.”5 Respondent believes that its interpretation is more consistent with this dictionary definition and argued that the OPS explanation of how it was applying this term was exceedingly novel and expansive. 6 KM CO2 stated that it believed OPS was attempting to impermissibly expand the requirements of § 195.404(c)(1) without providing fair notice or due process and requested that Item 7 be withdrawn.7 Having considered these arguments, I agree with Respondent that the language of the general 3 Recommendation, at 4. 4 Recommendation, at 6. 5 Description, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www merriam-webster.com/dictionary/description. 6 Post-hearing submission, at 2. 7 Id.#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 8recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1) does not specify that the word “description” means that all records created and maintained by a pipeline operator must automatically include the “who, what, when, where, and why” of any and all repairs. OPS could have included such precision in § 195.404(c)(1) when it promulgated the regulation but did not do so. Accordingly, this order does not apply such an automatic requirement to all recordkeeping generally done by Respondent. Turning to the specific part of the allegation in the Notice concerning the alleged failure to have procedures for having records that indicate which contractor and/or employee performed pipeline repair tasks which there is no dispute are “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations found in subpart G of Part 195. 8 At the hearing, OPS pointed out that the OQ regulations in subpart G include specific requirements that bear on the question of whether an operator’s record of a pipeline repair that involved a covered task under the OQ regulations must include the identification of the individual who performed the covered repair task. OPS argued that the OQ requirements were relevant and that the recordkeeping requirements should be read in a wholistic manner. Respondent disagreed with OPS’ arguments concerning the relevance of the OQ regulations. Respondent pointed out that the Notice itself did not cite the OQ regulations and noted that the OQ regulations were put in place long after the general recordkeeping requirement in §195.404(c)(1). Respondent argued that the general recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1) should be viewed by itself without regard to the OQ regulations. In evaluating these arguments, it must first be recognized that recordkeeping is not required merely for the sake of creating documentation. The primary purpose of the recordkeeping required by the regulations is to demonstrate compliance with the regulations and facilitate oversight of personnel. As OPS correctly pointed out: PHMSA has previously stated that “[m]aintaining complete and accurate records is itself important to safety because, in the absence of complete records, an operator’s managers cannot perform effective oversight of personnel who perform pipeline maintenance.” In re Pacific Operators Offshore, LLC, Final Order, 2010 WL 1323384, at *2 (Mar. 17, 2010) (emphasis added). If personnel are not identified on repair records, then supervisors cannot track their performance to ensure repairs are made safely.9 In assessing the relevance of the OQ regulations, it is helpful to understand the purpose and intent of these regulations. PHMSA promulgated the OQ regulations in 1999 in order to ensure a qualified workforce and reduce the probability and consequences of accidents caused by human 8 The term covered task is defined in § 195.501(b). Covered tasks are identified as such in the operator’s written OQ program and include operations and maintenance tasks performed as a requirement of Part 195 and that affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. 9 Recommendation, at 6.#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 9error. 64 Fed. Reg. 46853 (Aug. 27, 1999).10 Of particular relevance to this case, the OQ regulations include a section on recordkeeping that reads as follows: § 195.507 Recordkeeping. Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this subpart. (a) Qualification records shall include: (1) Identification of qualified individual(s); (2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform; (3) Date(s) of current qualification; and (4) Qualification method(s). (b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall be maintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years. Notably, the first thing on the list of what must be included in the employee qualification records in § 195.507(a)(1) is “Identification of the qualified individual(s).” The reason for this is obvious, the name and qualifications need to be matched up with a field activity record such as a covered repair task to determine if the qualifications were met. If the field record does not identify the individual, it is not possible to then match it up with the qualifications of that individual to ascertain whether or not the individual was qualified to perform that task. At their core, the primary purpose of the OQ regulations is to ensure that the individual assigned by an operator to perform a covered task was fully trained and qualified to perform that task. If a review of the covered tasks performed on a given day or at a given project location does not indicate which individuals performed one or more of the covered tasks, it is not possible to determine if the individual was qualified to perform such task and not possible to determine whether compliance with the OQ regulations was achieved. Such an outcome would negate the core purpose and effect of the OQ regulations to ensure it can be verified that individuals performing pipeline repair tasks are qualified to perform those tasks. Thus, while § 195.507 is aimed at the qualification records and not the covered repair records directly, it serves to clarify the content needed in the repair records to make the qualification records fulfill their function. While Respondent is correct that the OQ regulations were promulgated long after the general recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1), that does not mean that they can be ignored. It is well established that regulations, like statutes, must be construed wholistically and in a manner that, where possible, gives effect to all of the provisions.11 Many of the pipeline safety 10 The Pipeline Safety Act states: “The operator of a pipeline facility shall ensure that employees who operate and maintain the facility are qualified to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities.” 49 U.S.C. 60102(a)(3). 11 “As with statutes, regulations must be construed holistically.” See Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 356 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 938 F.3d 337, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]n expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence ... but look to the provisions of the whole law.”) (quoting Del. Dep't of Nat. Res. & Envtl. Control v. EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Comm'r, 986 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir. 1993) (“We must read the body of regulations ... so as to give effect, if possible, to all of its provisions.”)(internal citation omitted).#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 10regulations in Part 195 were promulgated after the general recordkeeping regulation in § 195.404(c)(1), but that does not mean the appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with these newer regulations need not be kept. Plainly, § 195.507 clarifies what the content of the qualification and covered task records must include. When the Part 195 regulations are read together and in a cohesive manner, it is clear that the records for a pipeline repair that is a covered task under the OQ regulations must include the identification of the individual(s) performing the covered task. I find that Respondent’s argument that the general recordkeeping requirement must be read to the exclusion of later promulgated regulations such as the OQ regulations, was unpersuasive. With regard to the fair notice concern raised by Respondent, it should be noted that as discussed above I did not apply any sweeping requirement that the “who” be included in all repair recordkeeping generally done by operators and the relevance of the OQ regulations serves to narrow the identification requirement to OQ covered repairs. 12 Moreover, the fact that § 195.507 appears prominently in the Part 195 regulations and OPS is not relying on some form of obscure guidance belies any such concerns. While it may have been helpful if OPS had referenced § 195.507 in the Notice itself, the Notice was sufficient to inform Respondent that the records at issue were for OQ covered repairs. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the remedy sought by OPS is for Respondent to simply correct its recordkeeping procedures going forward as opposed to imposing any penalty on Respondent.13 Finally, Respondent pointed to three other documents it maintained concerning repairs that it believed painted an adequate picture of the repairs. The first is the Pipeline Inspection/Repair Report (PIR). This fillable form includes information on when and where the repair was completed, what repair activity was performed, and why it was needed. It does not record who performed the repair. The second document Respondent provided is an Employee Sign-in Sheet, a fillable form that records the names of individuals present at a work site and the times they enter and leave the site. It does not record who performed specific repair activities. Finally, Respondent submitted a Job Hazard Analysis Worksheet. This fillable document records the sequence of basic job steps, potential hazards of each job step, and a plan of action to control or eliminate the hazard(s).14 While Respondent is correct that the regulations do not require any specific type of record or form be used, these documents did not serve to identify the individual who performed a given covered repair task. Accordingly, having considered all of the evidence, I find that Respondent's procedures for maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system. The Recommendation proposed requiring Respondent to “amend its procedures, and any 12 There may also be other areas of the regulations where identification of an employee in a record of an operator’s activity is necessary to demonstrate compliance, but we need not address that here. 13 This should not be construed to mean that Respondent’s fair notice argument would have prevailed if OPS had sought a civil penalty. 14 Post-hearing submission, at 3-6.#

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 11corresponding forms, to document names of individuals performing repair activities.”15 As stated above, however, I did not find that the general recordkeeping regulations automatically required that the “who” be documented for any and all repair activities, only for those that triggered determining compliance with applicable OQ regulations which is reflected in the modified ordering clause below. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Kinder Morgan CO2 is ordered to make the following amendments to its procedures: 1. Amend the procedures for maintaining records to ensure that each individual who performs a covered task under the OQ regulations is identifiable for the purpose of determining compliance with the OQ regulations. 2. Submit the amended procedures to the Director, Western Region, OPS within 30 days following receipt of this Order. 3. The Regional Director may extend the period for compliance with this Order upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this 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. The written petition must be received no later than 20 days after receipt of the 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 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 Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. October 25, 2022 ___________________________________ ______________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 15 Recommendation at 1.#

52021002NOA_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10192021_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOctober 19, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: annie.cook@troutman.com and dustin.hubbard@dot.gov Ms. Annie Cook, Esq. Counsel for Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. Dustin Hubbard Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 110 Lakewood, CO 80228 Re: Notice of Hearing, Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA Dear Ms. Cook and Mr. Hubbard: In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Amendment issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above- referenced case. The hearing will take place on January 12, 2022, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Mountain Time. The hearing will be held via videoconference. I will provide the videoconference information prior to the hearing. At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by January 3, 2022), both parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and email address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not submitted by this date may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Larry White Presiding Official cc: Ms. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc. jessica_toll@kindermorgan.com Ms. Erin Hendrixson, Counsel, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, erin.hendrixson@dot.gov#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFMarch 22, 2023 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: darrell ricketson@kindermorgan.com Mr. Darrell Ricketson Chief Operating Officer Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77002 Re: CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA Dear Mr. Ricketson: Enclosed please find the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case to Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC. It denies your Petition and the stay I granted during the pendency of the Petition is now terminated. When the terms of the Order Directing Amendment issued in this case are completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing 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 (Decision on Petition for Reconsideration) cc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Jaime Hernandez, Director, Engineering, Codes and Standards, Kinder Morgan, jaime_hernandez@kindermorgan.com#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 2Ms. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, jessica_toll@kindermorgan.com Ms. Annie Cook, Esq., Bracewell LLP, Outside Counsel for Kinder Morgan, annie.cook@bracewell.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION In an October 25, 2022 Order Directing Amendment (Order), I found that certain written operating and maintenance procedures of Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC (KM CO2 or Petitioner) were inadequate for the safe operation of a pipeline following an inspection by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated by Petitioner. 1 I found that seven of KM CO2’s procedures were inadequate as alleged in the August 16, 2021 Notice of Amendment. I further found that Petitioner had made amendments to its procedures that corrected six of the seven inadequacies, and I specified actions that needed to be taken by KM CO2 to correct the remaining inadequacy in its procedures for maintaining records in accordance with the pipeline safety regulations. On November 14, 2022, KM CO2 submitted a Petition for Reconsideration of the Order (Petition). The Petition requested that PHMSA reconsider its finding in Item 7 of the Order that Petitioner’s procedures for maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the Operator Qualification (OQ) regulations are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system. Because the Petition failed to show that the finding of inadequacy in Item 7 of Order was erroneous, I am denying the Petition. Background From September 28, 2020, through October 2, 2020, pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, OPS inspected the written procedures for welding, certification, inspection, and OQ procedures of KM CO2. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner, by letter dated August 16, 2021, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). The Notice alleged seven instances of inadequacies in Petitioner’s written operating and maintenance procedures and proposed requiring KM CO2 to amend its procedures to comply 1 In the matter of Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC, Order Directing Amendment, CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA (Oct. 25, 2022) (Order).#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 4with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. KM CO2 did not contest six of the seven alleged inadequacies and submitted revised procedures to address these inadequacies. With respect to the seventh alleged inadequacy involving Petitioner’s procedures for maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations, Petitioner contested the allegation and requested an informal hearing. A hearing was subsequently held via videoconference on March 3, 2022, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. Following the hearing, on October 25, 2022, I issued an Order that, with respect to Notice Item 7, found that Petitioner's procedures for maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system and specified actions that needed to be taken by Petitioner to correct this inadequacy. On November 14, 2022, KM CO2 filed a Petition requesting that PHMSA reconsider its finding in Item 7 of the Order that Petitioner’s procedures for maintaining these records were inadequate. Standard of Review Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent in a pipeline compliance proceeding is afforded the right to petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of an order. However, that right is not an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record.2 It is a venue for presenting the Associate Administrator with information that was not previously available or requesting that any errors in the order be corrected. Requests for consideration of additional facts or arguments must be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered. Analysis In determining the adequacy of a pipeline operator’s written plans or procedures, the Associate Administrator may consider: relevant available pipeline safety data; whether the plans or procedures are appropriate for the particular type of pipeline transportation or facility and for the location of the facility; the reasonableness of the plans or procedures; and the extent to which the plans or procedures contribute to public safety, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206.3 As an initial matter, the Order analyzed the application of § 195.404(c)(1) which states that “the date, location, and description” of each repair must be maintained in the operator’s records. OPS argued that while the regulations did not expressly define the word “description,” the plain meaning of the term is “the who, what, when, where, and why” of the subject being be described and that the “who” had particular relevance to this case. OPS argued that since KM CO2’s procedures did not include recording the name of the individual who performed the repair, the “who” was missing and therefore Respondent did not comply with the requirement to fully 2 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d). 3 49 C.F.R. § 190.206 (b) and (c). Paragraph (c) provides that an order directing amendment of an operator’s plans or procedures under paragraph (a) is in addition to, and may be used in conjunction with, other appropriate enforcement actions prescribed in Part 190.#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 5describe the repair.4 At the hearing and again in its Petition, KM CO2 disagreed that the word “description” should be defined in the manner suggested by OPS. Petitioner pointed to a dictionary definition of this term as meaning “kind or character” or “a statement or account giving the characteristics of someone or something.”5 KM CO2 believes that its interpretation is more consistent with this dictionary definition and argued that the OPS explanation of how it was applying this term was exceedingly novel and expansive. KM CO2 stated that it believed OPS was attempting to impermissibly expand the requirements of § 195.404(c)(1) without providing fair notice or due process and requested that Item 7 be withdrawn.6 In the Order, I agreed with Petitioner that the language of the general recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1) does not specify that the word “description” means that all records created and maintained by a pipeline operator must automatically include the “who, what, when, where, and why” of any and all repairs. I found that OPS could have included such precision in § 195.404(c)(1) when it promulgated the regulation but did not do so. Accordingly, the Order did not apply such an automatic requirement to all recordkeeping generally done by Petitioner. 7 The Order then turned to the specific allegation in the Notice concerning the alleged failure to have procedures for having records that indicate which contractor and/or employee performed pipeline repair tasks which there is no dispute are “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations found in subpart G of Part 195.8 In assessing the relevance of the OQ regulations, the Order reviewed the purpose and intent of the OQ regulations. PHMSA promulgated the OQ regulations in 1999 in order to ensure that pipeline operators employ a qualified workforce and reduce the probability and consequences of accidents caused by human error. 64 Fed. Reg. 46853 (Aug. 27, 1999).9 Of particular relevance to this case, the OQ regulations include a section on recordkeeping that reads as follows: § 195.507 Recordkeeping. Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this subpart. (a) Qualification records shall include: (1) Identification of qualified individual(s); (2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to 4 Order, at 5. 5 Description, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www merriam-webster.com/dictionary/description. 6 Order, at 5. 7 Order, at 6. 8 The term covered task is defined in § 195.501(b). Covered tasks are identified as such in the operator’s written OQ program and include operations and maintenance tasks performed as a requirement of Part 195 and that affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline. 9 The Pipeline Safety Act states: “The operator of a pipeline facility shall ensure that employees who operate and maintain the facility are qualified to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities.” 49 U.S.C. 60102(a)(3).#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 6perform; (3) Date(s) of current qualification; and (4) Qualification method(s). (b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall be maintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years. The Order noted that the first item on the list of what must be included in the employee qualification records in § 195.507(a)(1) is “Identification of the qualified individual(s).” The reason for this is obvious, the name and qualifications need to be matched up with a field activity record such as a covered repair task to determine if the qualifications were met. If the field record does not identify the individual, it is not possible to then match it up with the qualifications of that individual to ascertain whether or not the individual was qualified to perform that task.10 At their core, the primary purpose of the OQ regulations is to ensure that the individual assigned by an operator to perform a covered task was fully trained and qualified to perform that task. If a review of the covered tasks performed on a given day or at a given project location does not indicate which individuals performed one or more of the covered tasks, it is not possible to determine if the individual was qualified to perform such task and not possible to determine whether compliance with the OQ regulations was achieved. Such an outcome would negate the core purpose and effect of the OQ regulations, which is to ensure it can be verified that individuals performing pipeline repair tasks are qualified to perform those tasks. Thus, while § 195.507 is aimed at the qualification records and not the covered repair records directly, it serves to clarify the content needed in the repair records to make the qualification records fulfill their function. Petitioner argued that rationale in the Order was flawed in that the OQ regulations were promulgated long after the general recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1). 11 While it is true the OQ regulations were promulgated after the general recordkeeping requirement, it does not mean that they can be ignored. It is well established that regulations, like statutes, must be construed holistically and in a manner that, where possible, gives effect to all of the provisions.12 Many of the pipeline safety regulations in Part 195 were promulgated after the general recordkeeping regulation in § 195.404(c)(1), but that does not mean the appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with these newer regulations need not be kept. Plainly, § 195.507 clarifies what the content of the qualification and covered task records must include. When the 10 Order, at 7. 11 Petition, at 4-5. 12 “As with statutes, regulations must be construed holistically.” See Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 356 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 938 F.3d 337, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]n expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence ... but look to the provisions of the whole law.”) (quoting Del. Dep't of Nat. Res. & Envtl. Control v. EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Comm'r, 986 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir. 1993) (“We must read the body of regulations ... so as to give effect, if possible, to all of its provisions.”)(internal citation omitted).#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 7Part 195 regulations are read together and in a cohesive manner, it is clear that the records for a pipeline repair that is a covered task under the OQ regulations must include the identification of the individual(s) performing the covered task. Petitioner’s argument that the general recordkeeping requirement must be read to the exclusion of later promulgated regulations such as the OQ regulations is entirely inconsistent with the manner in which the Part 195 regulations have been applied for decades. With regard to Petitioner’s argument that it lacked fair notice of which records were required because it could not have anticipated that the OQ recordkeeping requirements had any relevance, the Notice was absolutely clear that the allegation focused on covered repair tasks which is a central aspect of the OQ requirements. Petitioner did present three other documents it maintained that it believed painted an adequate picture of the repairs, but as a factual matter they simply did not identify the individual who performed the covered repair task. 13 If Petitioner had other records such as OQ records that were not presented at the hearing, they could have been included with its Post-hearing Brief or the Petition but no such additional records were submitted. Finally, Petitioner argued that maintaining records indicating which contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations was burdensome and the reference to the OQ recordkeeping requirements in the Order expanded the scope of the alleged failure to comply with the regulations.14 However, the opposite is true. The reference to the OQ regulations focused the identification requirement from any repair performed on a pipeline to only those covered repair tasks under the OQ regulations. As discussed above, the Order did not apply any sweeping requirement that the “who” be included in all repair recordkeeping generally done by pipeline operators and the reference to the OQ regulations in the Order serves to focus the identification requirement to OQ covered repairs.15 Moreover, the fact that § 195.507 appears prominently in the Part 195 regulations and OPS is not relying on some form of obscure guidance belies any such fair notice concerns. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the remedy sought by OPS is for Petitioner to simply correct its recordkeeping procedures going forward as opposed to imposing any penalty. The requirement to maintain records that identify the individual who performs an OQ covered repair task is a straightforward recordkeeping requirement and it is unclear why Petitioner would find it confusing or burdensome. RELIEF DENIED Based on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the record, and for the reasons stated above, the relief sought in the Petition is denied and the stay is terminated. This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. March 22, 2023 13 Order, at 8. 14 Petition, at 3. 15 There may also be other areas of the regulations where identification of an employee in a record of an operator’s activity is necessary to demonstrate compliance, but we need not address that here.#

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 8_____________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

52021002NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_01102022_(20-191754)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDate: January 10, 2022 From: Larry White To: File Re: Continuance of Hearing, Kinder Morgan CO2 CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA By electronic mail dated January 7, 2022, Annie Cook, Counsel for Kinder Morgan CO2, and Erin Hendrixson, Counsel for OPS Western Region, submitted a joint request for a continuance of the hearing previously scheduled for January 12, 2022. The request explained that the parties were pursuing an agreement that would resolve the case and make a hearing unnecessary. I granted the request for a continuance until March 3, 2022 which will be the new hearing date if for any reason the agreement is not completed by that time.#