# COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 32022058NOPV  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2022-09-14

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.444(c), 195.446(f)(1), 195.446(f)(2), 195.446(h)(1), 195.446(j)(1).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.444(c),  195.446(f)(1),  195.446(f)(2),  195.446(h)(1),  195.446(j)(1). The case was opened on 2022-09-14 and is reported as closed as of 2024-01-26. Proposed civil penalty: $141,400. Assessed civil penalty: $55,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Final%20Order_01222024_(22-242811).pdf

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Final%20Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf

32022058NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_10312022_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10312022_(22-242811).pdf

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO%20(AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811).pdf

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO%20(AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
(AMENDED)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kakuehn@cvrenergy.com; brecord@cvrenergy.com;
mlcogdill@cvrenergy.com
September 14, 2022
Keith Kuehn, VP-Crude Transportation
Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC
P.O. Box 3516
411 N.E. Washington Boulevard
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74006
CPF 3-2022-058-NOPV
Dear Mr. Kuehn:
From August 26 to August 30, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Coffeyville Resources’ (CVR) records for Control Room
Management (CRM) in Houston, Texas.
At the time of the inspection, CVR assets were determined to be operated by a third party control
room identified as the Remote Operations Center (ROC). Since the time of the inspection, ROC
had been acquired two times by different companies: From July 22, 2019 to October 1, 2021,
LineStar Integrity Services, LLC; and from October 1, 2021 to present Everline Automation. At
the time of the issuance of this letter, ROC was part of the Everline control room located in
Houston, Texas, but still operated the CVR assets. However, for clarity in this letter, and, as a
result of the inspection documentation, the ROC/Everline control room and associated
procedures will be called “ROC.
”
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that CVR has committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected
and the probable violations are:



1. § 195.444 Leak detection.
(a) . . . .
(c) CPM leak detection systems. Each computational pipeline monitoring (CPM)
leak detection system installed on a hazardous liquid pipeline must comply with API
RP 1130 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) in operating, maintaining, testing,
record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.
CVR failed to ensure the CPM leak detection system complied with API RP 1130 in operating,
maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system. Specifically, CVR
failed to address the requirements or considerations of API RP 1130, Sections 6.2.6 Test
Records, 6.3 Operating Issues, 6.5 Controller Training and Retraining, and 6.6 Documentation.
CVR, through the ROC control room, has implemented a CPM system called Atmos Pipe on its
PHMSA-regulated assets. Atmos Pipe is identified to be compliant with API RP 1130. CVR,
through ROC, had contracted with Atmos for assistance on certain aspects of the CPM
maintenance, as identified in the Atmos Operations and Maintenance Manual CVR document.
However, CVR maintains the instrumentation and equipment located at and between pipeline
facilities required for the CPM system. It was not clear in procedures how the operations,
maintenance, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training would be addressed.
API 1130 Section 6.2.6, Test Records, states that “[t]he pipeline company or operator policy will
dictate the requirements for documentation of tests.” However, this information was not
available from CVR’s documentation. The only information associated with tests was identified
by Atmos in the Operations and Maintenance manual, but this manual did not identify CVR’s
requirements for the tests. This document did not describe the type of test that was done
(simulated a leak or performed a liquid withdrawal, as example) or what was required of the test
from CVR’s perspective.
API 1130 Section 6.3, Operating Issues, states that “[f]or an operating CPM system, the
following issues need to be considered:” 6.3.1 Security, 6.3.2 Parameter Changes, 6.3.3 Pipeline
System Maintenance Activities. Documentation provided did not identify how any of these had
been considered by CVR. While Section 5 of the document titled ATMOS International,
Operation and Maintenance Manual, Atmos Pipeline and Atmos Leak Detection System, CVR
pipelines, dated December 3, 2018, identified various aspects of maintenance, it did not identify
what specific actions would be performed by CVR personnel and/or ROC personnel. Records
were not found to exist that document what is being done for security, parameter changes, or
pipeline system maintenance by CVR and/or ROC personnel regarding the CPM system.
API 1130 Section 6.5, Controller Training and Retraining, states that “[t]he users of the CPM
system (i.e. the Pipeline Controllers) and any CPM support staff require appropriate CPM
training. CPM alarms may be the most complex type of alarm experienced by the Pipeline
Controller. Specific training and reference material is necessary to prepare the Pipeline
Controller to adequately recognize and respond to these alarms. This requires both a
knowledgeable perspective on the alarms themselves as well as the nature of the alarms.”
However, records were not provided that evidenced CPM training of controllers or other staff
had occurred.



API 1130 Section 6.6, CPM Documentation, provides a list of considerations regarding the
documentation for each pipeline system upon which CPM was employed. Records were not
available to demonstrate that CVR had performed the requisite considerations.
At the time of the inspection, records or other forms of documentation used by CVR and ROC
were not available to demonstrate compliance with the § 195.444 in operating, maintaining,
testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.
2. § 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that could affect
control room operations are coordinated with the control room personnel by
performing each of the following:
(1) Implement section 7 of API RP 1168 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) for
control room management change and require coordination between control room
representatives, operator’s management, and associated field personnel when
planning and implementing physical changes to pipeline equipment or
configuration; and ....
CVR failed, when implementing a leak detection system, to follow its CRM ROC procedures
regarding change management and the requirements of § 195.446(f)(1), which requires each
operator to assure that changes that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the
control room personnel. Specifically in CVR’s CRM ROC, Section 7.3 MOC [management of
change] Process states that “MOC documentation will include the following:
• Reason for the change
• Authority for approving changes
• Analysis of implementation
• Acquisition of required work permits
• Documentation
• Communication of change to affected parties
• Time Limitations (temporary)
• Qualification of Staff.”
CVR’s CRM ROC procedure further states “[a]ll MOC activities must be thoroughly
documented using Form 11-15 Management of Change and maintained in the control room
management record keeping files.” In December of 2018, ROC had implemented all or portions
of the CVR CRM ROC Atmos Leak Detection system. PHMSA requested to see the MOC
documentation associated with the leak detection system and the completed Form 11-15. The
Atmos vendor provided documentation for Operation and Maintenance of the system regarding
the leak detection system, but nothing regarding the MOC documentation as required by CVR’s
CRM ROC procedures was provided or available. ROC personnel acknowledged that the MOC



process had not been followed as described by the CVR CRM ROC procedures and stated that
the noncompliance was attributed to personnel changes with the company.
3. § 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that could affect
control room operations are coordinated with the control room personnel by
performing each of the following:
(1) . . . .
(2) Require its field personnel to contact the control room when emergency
conditions exist and when making field changes that affect control room operations.
CVR field personnel failed to contact the control room when emergency conditions existed and
when making field changes that affected control room operations. PHMSA reviewed CVR Daily
Shift logs from 8/19/2019 and 8/20/2019 for both day and night shifts. Documentation did not
indicate that coordination and communication with the control room in advance of making field
changes that affect the control room had occurred.
During the inspection, CVR verbally described the process for exchanging information with a
controller prior to maintenance activities occurring in the field. On the day shift before
maintenance occurs in the field, field personnel and the controller have a conference call. In that
conference call, the maintenance activities planned for the day by location are discussed. The
controller records this information in the shift record. However, on 8/19/2019 and 8/20/2019,
some maintenance activities occurred in the field that affected the control room and were not
coordinated during the morning conference call with field operations nor were these actions
communicated in advance to the control room.
On 8/19/2019, day shift records indicated that the controller contacted the Coffeyville Station
field personnel stating that a pump was down. The field personnel informed the controller that
this was for on-site testing. The controller was unaware of these actions until contacting the field
as indicated in the shift log.
On 8/20/2019, the shift logs indicated that the Emergency Shutdown Devices (ESDs) were tested
at Brothers, Kelley, and Hooser stations, but prior control room notification was not recorded in
the shift logs as a result of the morning meeting and nothing in the shift log indicated that
coordination with the control room occurred prior to the ESD tests.
During the PHMSA inspection, CVR was unable to provide documentation for 8/19/2019 and
8/20/2019 to confirm coordination of activities between the field and control room existed for
Coffeyville testing affecting a station pump and Brothers, Kelley, and Hooser ESD testing.
4. § 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program and
review the training program content to identify potential improvements at least
once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months. An operator's



program must provide for training each controller to carry out the roles and
responsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the training program must
include the following elements:
(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously
or in sequence;
CVR failed to establish a controller training program that included responding to abnormal
operating conditions (AOCs) likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. CVR did not have a
list of AOCs that are likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence, and did not have these
elements identified as part of the training program, as required by § 195.446(h)(1).
During the PHMSA inspection, CVR was unable to produce any training records or other
corroborating evidence to demonstrate that it was conducting controller training for responding
to AOCs likely to occur, simultaneously or in sequence.
5. § 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review during
inspection:
(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section; and
….
CVR failed to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with several requirements of §
195.446. First, records did not exist to demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(e)(6). CVR
CRM procedure, Section 11, Forms, required that forms identified in that section will be used for
the execution of the CRM plan. Form 11-10, Monthly Alarm Review, was included in Section
11. This form was not used to document the requirements of § 195.446(e)(2) and nothing else
was identified in the procedure to be used for the record to document the CVR monthly alarm
review.
Secondly, while Form 11-16, Alarm Deficiencies, was referenced in Section 11, Forms, of
CVR’s CRM plan, and specifically identified in Section 8.10.6, Deficiencies, this form was not
used at the time of the inspection to track resolution of those deficiencies identified in §§
195.446(e)(1) through (e)(5).
Records were also not available to demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(f), Section 7.4 or
Section 7.6 of CVR’s CRM procedures. CVR was unable to provide records to demonstrate that
controllers had reviewed Management of Change (MOC) email documentation (notification)
before taking shift regarding changes that had or would be occurring on the console. Similarly,
records did not demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(f)(10) or CVR’s CRM procedures,
Sections 7.4 and 7.6, when training is required as the result of a change.



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$239,142 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,391,412 for a
related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after May 3, 2021 and before March
21, 2022, the maximum penalty may not exceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation
persists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of violations. For violation
occurring on or after January 11, 2021 and before May 3, 2021, the maximum penalty may not
exceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for
a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July 31, 2019 and before
January 11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per violation per day the
violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation
occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may
For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the
not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679.
maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not
to exceed $2,090,022.
We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above
probable violations and recommend that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of
$141,400 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
2
$36,200
3
$36,200
4
$36,200
5
$32,800
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item #1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Coffeyville Resources Crude
Transportation, LLC. 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 Enforcement 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 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, 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 3-2022-058-NOPV and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
cc: Blake Record,, DOT Compliance Primary, brecord@cvrenergy.com
Mike Cogdill, DOT Compliance Primary, mlcogdill@cvrenergy.com



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC
(CVR), a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the
compliance of CVR with the pipeline safety regulations:
A. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to API 1130 Section 6.2.6, Test
Records, CVR must create a procedure and associated documentation that will
dictate the requirements for CPM tests. This must include the types of changes
that will require a retest, identify periodic tests, identify original site specific test
requirements, clarify what types of tests may be used (simulation, withdrawal,
etc.), include periodic test frequency, define that the type of test that is performed
must be part of the documentation of a test, require specifics of how the test was
performed to be part of the test documentation, and require that a record of the
test results along with the applicable test date be maintained for test
documentation. CVR must document the type of test and specific date that these
tests were performed for the existing Coffeyville assets and Atmos CPM system.
The documentation must also clarify the associated output of those tests so that
the documentation is complete and will provide clarification regarding that which
is described in the Atmos International Operation and Maintenance manual. This
documentation must be submitted to the Central Region Director and completed
within 120 days of the receipt of the Final Order.
B. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to records, procedures, or other forms
of documentation used by CVR, which were not available to demonstrate
compliance with § 195.444 in operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and
dispatcher training of the system, CVR must create API RP 1130 documentation
requirements and integrate those requirements within its CRM procedures.
Specifically, CVR’s CRM procedures must be amended to include reference to
API 1130 Section 6.3 Operating Issues and must be amended to ensure that the
following issues are considered: API RP 1130 Section 6.3.1 Security, 6.3.2
Parameter Changes, 6.3.3 Pipeline System Maintenance Activities. A listing of
the instrumentation that is involved in the leak detection system shall also be
prepared. Additionally, a process shall be established for how this
instrumentation will be adequately maintained between CVR and ROC.
Clarification in procedures and associated documentation shall be established to
define the types of changes that will result in the required maintenance and how
the integrity of the CPM system will be maintained through instrumentation
maintenance or replacement. The procedures and documentation shall clarify
when a task is considered as maintenance only and does not require retesting of
the Atmos system (changes requiring retests are described in paragraph A above).
This must also include a review of Section 6.6 CPM Documentation of API 1130
and identify how the list of considerations were reviewed and clarify which of the
considerations will be included with the CPM system implementation and
documentation. All resulting documentation and procedures must be submitted to
the Central Region Director within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.
C. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to API 1130 Section 6.5, Controller
Training and Retraining, CVR must require that users of the CPM system (i.e. the
Pipeline Controllers) and any CPM support staff receive appropriate CPM



training specific to the Atmos system and specific to CVR. Along with support
staff, this training must include controllers scheduled to operate CVR and those
controllers that are cross trained on the console with CVR assets, leads, managers,
and supervisors over the CVR assets. Training must be completed, and training
content along with records identifying who attended this training must be
submitted, to the Central Region Director within 90 days of receipt of the Final
Order
D. It is requested that CVR maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Gregory
A. Ochs, Director, Central, 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.

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf

January 22, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kakuehn@cvrenergy.com
Keith Kuehn
Vice President, Crude Transportation
Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC
P.O. Box 3516
411 N.E. Washington Boulevard
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74006
Re: CPF No. 3-2022-058-NOPV
Dear Mr. Kuehn:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of
the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, and assesses a reduced civil
penalty of $55,200. It further finds that Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC has
completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.
When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the
Final Order 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
cc: Mr. Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Blake Record, Safety Specialist – DOT Pipeline, Coffeyville Resources Crude
Transportation, LLC, brecord@cvrenergy.com



Mr. Ronald McGill, DOT Compliance Primary, Coffeyville Resources Crude
Transportation, LLC, rmcgill@cvrenergy.com
Ms. Janice T. DeVelasco, P.E., Vice President – Environmental, Health, and Safety,
Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC, jdevelasco@cvrenergy.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Coffeyville Resources Crude )
Transportation, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-058-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August 26 to 30, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
inspected Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC’s (Coffeyville or Respondent)
records for Control Room Management (CRM) in Houston, Texas. At the time of the inspection,
Coffeyville pipeline assets were controlled by a third-party control room identified as the
Remote Operations Center (ROC). From July 22, 2019, to October 1, 2021, the ROC was owned
by LineStar Integrity Services, LLC. Presently, Everline Automation owns the ROC and
controls the Coffeyville assets. Coffeyville’s pipeline system includes over 900 miles of
pipelines transporting crude oil.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated September 14, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order, which was amended on the same date by issuance of an Amended
Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order
(Notice).1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Coffeyville
had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of
$141,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Coffeyville responded to the
Notice by letter dated October 31, 2022 (Response). Coffeyville contested several of the
allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the
proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Coffeyville met with the Director on April 11, 2023, and
provided a supplemental response on April 28, 2023, with supporting documentation
(Supplemental Response). Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its
right to one.
1 The Director issued the amended Notice to correct the proposed civil penalty.



FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(c), which states:
§ 195.444 Leak detection.
(a) . . . .
(c) CPM leak detection systems. Each computational pipeline
monitoring (CPM) leak detection system installed on a hazardous liquid
pipeline must comply with API RP 1130 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3) in operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher
training of the system.2
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(c) by failing to ensure the CPM
leak detection system installed on its hazardous liquid pipeline complied with API RP 1130 in
operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Coffeyville failed to address the requirements in sections 6.2.6, 6.3, 6.5,
and 6.6 of API RP 1130 for its Atmos CPM system.
In its Response, Coffeyville did not contest Item 1. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(c) by failing to ensure the CPM
leak detection system installed on its hazardous liquid pipeline complied with API RP 1130 in
operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(1), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that
could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room
personnel by performing each of the following:
(1) Implement section 7 of API RP 1168 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3) for control room management change and require coordination
between control room representatives, operator’s management, and
associated field personnel when planning and implementing physical
changes to pipeline equipment or configuration; . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(1) by failing to ensure
changes that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room
personnel by implementing section 7 of API RP 1168. Specifically, the Notice alleged that when
implementing the Atmos leak detection system, Respondent failed to follow its CRM ROC
procedures and § 195.446(f)(1), which required documenting management of change (MOC)
2 In a final rule published October 1, 2019, PHMSA reorganized the requirements of § 195.444 into paragraphs (a)
and (c), and added a new provision in paragraph (b). Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, Final
Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. 52260, 52289 (Oct. 1, 2019).



using Form 11-15, to include: the reason for the change, authority for approving changes,
analysis of implementation, acquisition of required work permits, documentation,
communication of change to affected parties, time limitations, and qualification of staff. The
Notice alleged that PHMSA requested Coffeyville provide MOC documentation and a completed
Form 11-15 for implementing the leak detection system, but Coffeyville was unable to provide
documentation to demonstrate compliance with its procedures or § 195.446(f)(1).
In its Response, Coffeyville contested the alleged violation in Item 2, arguing that it coordinated
with the ROC during transition to the Atmos leak detection system, developed specific
procedures for change management, and prepared MOC notification documents, such as MOC
Form 11-15 (dated 9/17/2018) and an MOC Notification document (dated 5/17/2018).
Coffeyville provided copies of the referenced documents. In its Supplemental Response,
Coffeyville provided additional records, including an MOC request form for the Natoma system
(dated 6/5/2018). Respondent contended these records demonstrate it was in compliance and
requested that the item be reduced to a warning because any potential deviations from the
regulation or its procedures were insignificant.
After a thorough review of the record, I find that the documentation and records submitted by
Respondent are insufficient to demonstrate compliance with MOC requirements when
implementing the Atmos leak detection system. Respondent’s CRM ROC procedures and
§ 195.446(f)(1) required, at a minimum, that Respondent document MOC when implementing
the leak detection system including: the reason for the change, authority for approving changes,
analysis of implementation, acquisition of required work permits, documentation,
communication of change to affected parties, time limitations, and qualification of staff. When
reviewing the submitted Form 11-15 (dated 9/17/2018), that record identified only general
changes to operational control (e.g., “ROC will now possess sole ability to remotely control the
CVR Pipeline system”), without any specific mention of implementing the leak detection system.
That form and other records submitted by Respondent for this Item fail to document all of the
following as required when implementing the Atmos leak detection: the reason for the change,
authority for approving changes, analysis of implementation, acquisition of required work
permits, documentation, communication of change to affected parties, time limitations, and
qualification of staff. Therefore, I find Respondent did not comply with its procedures and
§ 195.446(f)(1).
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(f)(1) by failing to ensure that changes that could affect control room operations are
coordinated with the control room personnel by implementing section 7 of API RP 1168 when
implementing a leak detection system.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(2), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that
could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room
personnel by performing each of the following:
(1) . . . .



(2) Require its field personnel to contact the control room when
emergency conditions exist and when making field changes that affect
control room operations.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(2) by failing to ensure
changes that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room
personnel by requiring its field personnel to contact the control room when emergency
conditions existed and when making field changes that affected control room operations.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville personnel failed to coordinate and communicate
with the control room when making field changes that affected the control room on August 19
and 20, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the Notice alleged, a pump was down for on-site testing, but
the controller was not aware of this action until contacting field personnel. On August 20, 2019,
the Notice alleged emergency shutdown devices were tested in the field without prior control
room notification.
In its Response, Coffeyville contested the alleged violation in Item 3, arguing it did coordinate
and communicate with the control room when the field changes were made. On August 19,
2019, Coffeyville stated the control room operator on duty was aware that operator personnel
were onsite for a set point test. On August 20, 2019, Coffeyville stated the station testing was a
collaboration between operator personnel and control room operators and therefore the on-duty
controller was aware and participated in the testing. Coffeyville provided evidence of
communications between control room personnel and operator personnel on August 19 related to
a set point test. Coffeyville also clarified that the control room operator notified operator
personnel of a shut valve, as required by the procedures, and not because the control room
operator was unaware of the set point testing. Similarly, Coffeyville provided evidence of
communication between control room personnel and operator personnel on August 20 related to
station testing. Coffeyville indicated that the on-duty controller participated in the testing, and
therefore was in communication with operator personnel.
In a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director
recommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 195.446(f)(2).
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 3 be withdrawn. Respondent is warned that
failure to maintain records demonstrating compliance may result in potential future enforcement.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program
and review the training program content to identify potential improvements
at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.
An operator’s program must provide for training each controller to carry out
the roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the
training program must include the following elements:
(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur



simultaneously or in sequence;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1) by failing to establish a
controller training program that included responding to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs)
likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville
failed to develop a list of AOCs that are likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence and did
not have these elements identified as part of any training program conducted for controllers.
In its Response, Coffeyville contested the allegation of violation in Item 4, arguing that its
training program included responding to AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.
Coffeyville stated that all ROC controllers were trained and tested on scenarios involving
sequential AOCs and that specific training exam questions on sequential AOCs were identified
as question numbers 5, 7, and 11. Respondent provided documentation to support its position.
In its Supplemental Response, Respondent contended the records demonstrate it was in
substantive compliance and requested that the item be reduced to a warning. Alternatively,
Coffeyville argued the penalty should be reduced, which I address below in the civil penalty
section.
After a thorough review of the record, I find that while Respondent’s training program included
responding to some AOCs, the program failed to include training on all AOCs likely to occur
simultaneously or in sequence. Section 10.2 of the CRM ROC procedures stated that AOC
training includes “responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or
in sequence . . . .” The CRM ROC procedures did not otherwise list the relevant AOCs or
include any additional details. The ROC Controller-CVR Pipeline System Training Exam,
question numbers 5, 7, and 11, asked only about responding to several AOCs (e.g., unexpected
valve closures and leak alarms), rather than the range of AOCs that could be experienced by the
ROC controllers operating Respondent’s pipeline system. Those third-party controllers may
potentially also control other operators’ systems from the same console and may experience
multiple AOCs. PHMSA has previously determined that a failure to list AOCs constitutes a
violation of § 195.446(h)(1).3 As noted previously, operators cannot effectively conduct training
without a complete list of AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.4
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Coffeyville violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(h)(1) by failing to establish a controller training program that included responding to
AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(1), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review
during inspection:
(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this
3 Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2021-013-NOPV, 2021 WL 5494048 (Nov. 1, 2021).
4 Id., at 3.



section; . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(1) by failing to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance with § 195.446. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Coffeyville failed to provide records demonstrating compliance with several requirements of
§ 195.446(e) and (f) related to alarm management and MOC. For example, the Notice alleged that
Respondent failed to document compliance using Form 11-10, Monthly Alarm Review and Form
11-16, Alarm Deficiencies, as required by section 11 of its CRM ROC procedures. The Notice
also alleged that Respondent failed to maintain records to demonstrate controllers had reviewed
MOC email documentation before taking shifts regarding changes that had or would be
occurring on the console, and that records were not provided that indicated when training was
required as the result of a change, as required by section 7 of the CRM ROC procedures.
In its Response, Coffeyville contested the alleged violation in Item 5, arguing that it maintained
the requisite documents. Coffeyville asserted it maintained documentation with the required
alarm management information, although it acknowledged the information was not explicitly
labeled as noted in its procedures (i.e., Form 11-10 and 11-16). With respect to MOC,
Coffeyville asserted it maintained and provided the requisite documentation. In its Response and
Supplemental Response, Coffeyville provided records to support its position, including two
“Monthly Alarm Reviews,” that included alarm metrics such as alarms inhibited, points taken off
scan, false alarms, and forced or manual alarms. The records also provide additional details on
alarm deficiencies, such as the specific alarm, date corrected, and additional notes. In addition,
Coffeyville provided records related to MOC, including Form 11-15, Management of Change.
Coffeyville also provided email records demonstrating that oncoming controllers reviewed MOC
email documentation before taking shift regarding changes that had or would be occurring on the
console.
In a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director
recommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 195.446(j)(1).
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 5 be withdrawn. Respondent is warned that
failure to maintain records demonstrating compliance may result in potential future enforcement.
The findings of violation in this Final Order 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.5
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.



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; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
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 $141,400 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(f)(1) for failing to ensure changes that could affect control room operations are
coordinated with the control room personnel by implementing section 7 of API RP 1168 when
Respondent implemented a leak detection system. Respondent argued there is no basis for a
penalty.
Reviewing the record, I find the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice was based on the
criteria factors listed above, as described more fully in the Violation Report. With respect to the
nature and circumstances of this violation, the Violation Report noted Respondent failed to
conduct a required activity and the violation was discovered by PHMSA. With respect to the
gravity of this violation, the Violation Report noted pipeline safety was minimally affected.
With respect to culpability and good faith, the Violation Report noted that Respondent failed to
comply with an applicable requirement and there was no reasonable justification for the non-
compliance. I find each of these considerations was proper based on the evidence. Therefore, I
conclude the record supports the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $36,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(1).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,200 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(2). Since this alleged violation has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is
not assessed.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $36,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(h)(1) for failing to establish a controller training program that included responding to
AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. Respondent asserted the penalty should be
reduced because it had only one prior offense in the past five years and based on Respondent’s
“good faith efforts to comply with the training requirements.”6
With respect to the number of prior offenses, Part C of the Pipeline Safety Violation Report
included a chart of Respondent’s prior offenses within the five-year period preceding issuance of
the Notice. The chart included 12 total offenses, one for each finding of violation in two final
orders (CPF No.’s 3-2016-5006 and 3-2019-5021) issued since September 14, 2017, or the five-
year period preceding issuance of the Notice. This information was considered and incorporated
into the calculation of the civil penalty. Therefore, the civil penalty accurately reflects
Respondent’s history of prior offenses.
6 Supplemental Response, at 3.



With respect to good faith, in a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to
§ 190.209(b)(7), the Director agreed that Respondent had exhibited good faith in attempting to
achieve compliance and recommended a corresponding reduction to the penalty. Having
considered Respondent’s efforts to include training exam questions on sequential AOCs, I find
that a penalty reduction is warranted.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $19,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,800 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(1). Since this alleged violation has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is
not assessed.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $55,200.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
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 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.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for a violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.444(c). 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. The Director
indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance
order:
With respect to the violation of § 195.444(c) (Item 1), Respondent has updated its
CRM ROC procedures to address the requirements in sections 6.2.6, 6.3, 6.5, and 6.6
of API RP 1130.



Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
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. The written petition must be received no later than
20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
brief 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 any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,
upon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order
becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
January 22, 2024
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32022058NOPV>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `b003f5951b3e3ce620ac9f51ed026db0324413a780d10e7a1b1d8d73e86d06c5`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T20:11:21.346Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-32022058nopv`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "32022058NOPV",
  "operator": "COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC",
  "region": "Central",
  "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.444(c)",
    "195.446(f)(1)",
    "195.446(f)(2)",
    "195.446(h)(1)",
    "195.446(j)(1)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 7,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Final%20Order_01222024_(22-242811).pdf",
      "bytes": 246422,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Final%20Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 184341,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_10312022_(22-242811).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10312022_(22-242811).pdf",
      "bytes": 910238,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO%20(AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811).pdf",
      "bytes": 361422,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO%20(AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 156824,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf",
      "bytes": 360723,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 156802,
      "category": "case_document"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 2,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC"
}
```