COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF32022058NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_10312022_(22-242811).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE 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:#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 21. § 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.#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 3API 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#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 4process 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#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 5program 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.#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 6Proposed 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,#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 7this 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#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 8PROPOSED 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#

32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 9training 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, page 1Official PDFJanuary 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#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 2Mr. 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#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_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 ) 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.#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 4FINDINGS 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).#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 5using 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) . . . .#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 6(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#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 7simultaneously 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.#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 8section; . . . . 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.#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 9must 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.#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 10With 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.#

32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf, page 11Accordingly, 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#