{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32022058NOPV","title":"COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-09-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"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).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022058nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022058nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022058nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32022058NOPV","body":"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.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Final%20Order_01222024_(22-242811).pdf\n\n32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_Final%20Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf\n\n32022058NOPV_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\n\n32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO%20(AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811).pdf\n\n32022058NOPV_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\n\n32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO_0914022_(22-242811).pdf\n\n32022058NOPV_PCP PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022058NOPV/32022058NOPV_PCP%20PCO_0914022_(22-242811)_text.pdf\n\n32022058NOPV_PCP PCO (AMENDED)_09142022_(22-242811)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\n(AMENDED)\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kakuehn@cvrenergy.com; brecord@cvrenergy.com;\nmlcogdill@cvrenergy.com\nSeptember 14, 2022\nKeith Kuehn, VP-Crude Transportation\nCoffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC\nP.O. Box 3516\n411 N.E. Washington Boulevard\nBartlesville, Oklahoma 74006\nCPF 3-2022-058-NOPV\nDear Mr. Kuehn:\nFrom August 26 to August 30, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Coffeyville Resources’ (CVR) records for Control Room\nManagement (CRM) in Houston, Texas.\nAt the time of the inspection, CVR assets were determined to be operated by a third party control\nroom identified as the Remote Operations Center (ROC). Since the time of the inspection, ROC\nhad been acquired two times by different companies: From July 22, 2019 to October 1, 2021,\nLineStar Integrity Services, LLC; and from October 1, 2021 to present Everline Automation. At\nthe time of the issuance of this letter, ROC was part of the Everline control room located in\nHouston, Texas, but still operated the CVR assets. However, for clarity in this letter, and, as a\nresult of the inspection documentation, the ROC/Everline control room and associated\nprocedures will be called “ROC.\n”\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that CVR has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. § 195.444 Leak detection.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) CPM leak detection systems. Each computational pipeline monitoring (CPM)\nleak detection system installed on a hazardous liquid pipeline must comply with API\nRP 1130 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) in operating, maintaining, testing,\nrecord keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.\nCVR failed to ensure the CPM leak detection system complied with API RP 1130 in operating,\nmaintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system. Specifically, CVR\nfailed to address the requirements or considerations of API RP 1130, Sections 6.2.6 Test\nRecords, 6.3 Operating Issues, 6.5 Controller Training and Retraining, and 6.6 Documentation.\nCVR, through the ROC control room, has implemented a CPM system called Atmos Pipe on its\nPHMSA-regulated assets. Atmos Pipe is identified to be compliant with API RP 1130. CVR,\nthrough ROC, had contracted with Atmos for assistance on certain aspects of the CPM\nmaintenance, as identified in the Atmos Operations and Maintenance Manual CVR document.\nHowever, CVR maintains the instrumentation and equipment located at and between pipeline\nfacilities required for the CPM system. It was not clear in procedures how the operations,\nmaintenance, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training would be addressed.\nAPI 1130 Section 6.2.6, Test Records, states that “[t]he pipeline company or operator policy will\ndictate the requirements for documentation of tests.” However, this information was not\navailable from CVR’s documentation. The only information associated with tests was identified\nby Atmos in the Operations and Maintenance manual, but this manual did not identify CVR’s\nrequirements for the tests. This document did not describe the type of test that was done\n(simulated a leak or performed a liquid withdrawal, as example) or what was required of the test\nfrom CVR’s perspective.\nAPI 1130 Section 6.3, Operating Issues, states that “[f]or an operating CPM system, the\nfollowing issues need to be considered:” 6.3.1 Security, 6.3.2 Parameter Changes, 6.3.3 Pipeline\nSystem Maintenance Activities. Documentation provided did not identify how any of these had\nbeen considered by CVR. While Section 5 of the document titled ATMOS International,\nOperation and Maintenance Manual, Atmos Pipeline and Atmos Leak Detection System, CVR\npipelines, dated December 3, 2018, identified various aspects of maintenance, it did not identify\nwhat specific actions would be performed by CVR personnel and/or ROC personnel. Records\nwere not found to exist that document what is being done for security, parameter changes, or\npipeline system maintenance by CVR and/or ROC personnel regarding the CPM system.\nAPI 1130 Section 6.5, Controller Training and Retraining, states that “[t]he users of the CPM\nsystem (i.e. the Pipeline Controllers) and any CPM support staff require appropriate CPM\ntraining. CPM alarms may be the most complex type of alarm experienced by the Pipeline\nController. Specific training and reference material is necessary to prepare the Pipeline\nController to adequately recognize and respond to these alarms. This requires both a\nknowledgeable perspective on the alarms themselves as well as the nature of the alarms.”\nHowever, records were not provided that evidenced CPM training of controllers or other staff\nhad occurred.\n\n\n\nAPI 1130 Section 6.6, CPM Documentation, provides a list of considerations regarding the\ndocumentation for each pipeline system upon which CPM was employed. Records were not\navailable to demonstrate that CVR had performed the requisite considerations.\nAt the time of the inspection, records or other forms of documentation used by CVR and ROC\nwere not available to demonstrate compliance with the § 195.444 in operating, maintaining,\ntesting, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.\n2. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that could affect\ncontrol room operations are coordinated with the control room personnel by\nperforming each of the following:\n(1) Implement section 7 of API RP 1168 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) for\ncontrol room management change and require coordination between control room\nrepresentatives, operator’s management, and associated field personnel when\nplanning and implementing physical changes to pipeline equipment or\nconfiguration; and ....\nCVR failed, when implementing a leak detection system, to follow its CRM ROC procedures\nregarding change management and the requirements of § 195.446(f)(1), which requires each\noperator to assure that changes that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the\ncontrol room personnel. Specifically in CVR’s CRM ROC, Section 7.3 MOC [management of\nchange] Process states that “MOC documentation will include the following:\n• Reason for the change\n• Authority for approving changes\n• Analysis of implementation\n• Acquisition of required work permits\n• Documentation\n• Communication of change to affected parties\n• Time Limitations (temporary)\n• Qualification of Staff.”\nCVR’s CRM ROC procedure further states “[a]ll MOC activities must be thoroughly\ndocumented using Form 11-15 Management of Change and maintained in the control room\nmanagement record keeping files.” In December of 2018, ROC had implemented all or portions\nof the CVR CRM ROC Atmos Leak Detection system. PHMSA requested to see the MOC\ndocumentation associated with the leak detection system and the completed Form 11-15. The\nAtmos vendor provided documentation for Operation and Maintenance of the system regarding\nthe leak detection system, but nothing regarding the MOC documentation as required by CVR’s\nCRM ROC procedures was provided or available. ROC personnel acknowledged that the MOC\n\n\n\nprocess had not been followed as described by the CVR CRM ROC procedures and stated that\nthe noncompliance was attributed to personnel changes with the company.\n3. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that could affect\ncontrol room operations are coordinated with the control room personnel by\nperforming each of the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Require its field personnel to contact the control room when emergency\nconditions exist and when making field changes that affect control room operations.\nCVR field personnel failed to contact the control room when emergency conditions existed and\nwhen making field changes that affected control room operations. PHMSA reviewed CVR Daily\nShift logs from 8/19/2019 and 8/20/2019 for both day and night shifts. Documentation did not\nindicate that coordination and communication with the control room in advance of making field\nchanges that affect the control room had occurred.\nDuring the inspection, CVR verbally described the process for exchanging information with a\ncontroller prior to maintenance activities occurring in the field. On the day shift before\nmaintenance occurs in the field, field personnel and the controller have a conference call. In that\nconference call, the maintenance activities planned for the day by location are discussed. The\ncontroller records this information in the shift record. However, on 8/19/2019 and 8/20/2019,\nsome maintenance activities occurred in the field that affected the control room and were not\ncoordinated during the morning conference call with field operations nor were these actions\ncommunicated in advance to the control room.\nOn 8/19/2019, day shift records indicated that the controller contacted the Coffeyville Station\nfield personnel stating that a pump was down. The field personnel informed the controller that\nthis was for on-site testing. The controller was unaware of these actions until contacting the field\nas indicated in the shift log.\nOn 8/20/2019, the shift logs indicated that the Emergency Shutdown Devices (ESDs) were tested\nat Brothers, Kelley, and Hooser stations, but prior control room notification was not recorded in\nthe shift logs as a result of the morning meeting and nothing in the shift log indicated that\ncoordination with the control room occurred prior to the ESD tests.\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, CVR was unable to provide documentation for 8/19/2019 and\n8/20/2019 to confirm coordination of activities between the field and control room existed for\nCoffeyville testing affecting a station pump and Brothers, Kelley, and Hooser ESD testing.\n4. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program and\nreview the training program content to identify potential improvements at least\nonce each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months. An operator's\n\n\n\nprogram must provide for training each controller to carry out the roles and\nresponsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the training program must\ninclude the following elements:\n(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously\nor in sequence;\nCVR failed to establish a controller training program that included responding to abnormal\noperating conditions (AOCs) likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. CVR did not have a\nlist of AOCs that are likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence, and did not have these\nelements identified as part of the training program, as required by § 195.446(h)(1).\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, CVR was unable to produce any training records or other\ncorroborating evidence to demonstrate that it was conducting controller training for responding\nto AOCs likely to occur, simultaneously or in sequence.\n5. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review during\ninspection:\n(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section; and\n….\nCVR failed to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with several requirements of §\n195.446. First, records did not exist to demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(e)(6). CVR\nCRM procedure, Section 11, Forms, required that forms identified in that section will be used for\nthe execution of the CRM plan. Form 11-10, Monthly Alarm Review, was included in Section\n11. This form was not used to document the requirements of § 195.446(e)(2) and nothing else\nwas identified in the procedure to be used for the record to document the CVR monthly alarm\nreview.\nSecondly, while Form 11-16, Alarm Deficiencies, was referenced in Section 11, Forms, of\nCVR’s CRM plan, and specifically identified in Section 8.10.6, Deficiencies, this form was not\nused at the time of the inspection to track resolution of those deficiencies identified in §§\n195.446(e)(1) through (e)(5).\nRecords were also not available to demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(f), Section 7.4 or\nSection 7.6 of CVR’s CRM procedures. CVR was unable to provide records to demonstrate that\ncontrollers had reviewed Management of Change (MOC) email documentation (notification)\nbefore taking shift regarding changes that had or would be occurring on the console. Similarly,\nrecords did not demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(f)(10) or CVR’s CRM procedures,\nSections 7.4 and 7.6, when training is required as the result of a change.\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$239,142 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,391,412 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after May 3, 2021 and before March\n21, 2022, the maximum penalty may not exceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation\npersists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after January 11, 2021 and before May 3, 2021, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for\na related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July 31, 2019 and before\nJanuary 11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per violation per day the\nviolation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may\nFor violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the\nnot exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679.\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not\nto exceed $2,090,022.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above\nprobable violations and recommend that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$141,400 as follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\n2\n$36,200\n3\n$36,200\n4\n$36,200\n5\n$32,800\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item #1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Coffeyville Resources Crude\nTransportation, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and\nmade a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Enforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\n\n\n\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This\nperiod may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2022-058-NOPV and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\ncc: Blake Record,, DOT Compliance Primary, brecord@cvrenergy.com\nMike Cogdill, DOT Compliance Primary, mlcogdill@cvrenergy.com\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC\n(CVR), a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of CVR with the pipeline safety regulations:\nA. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to API 1130 Section 6.2.6, Test\nRecords, CVR must create a procedure and associated documentation that will\ndictate the requirements for CPM tests. This must include the types of changes\nthat will require a retest, identify periodic tests, identify original site specific test\nrequirements, clarify what types of tests may be used (simulation, withdrawal,\netc.), include periodic test frequency, define that the type of test that is performed\nmust be part of the documentation of a test, require specifics of how the test was\nperformed to be part of the test documentation, and require that a record of the\ntest results along with the applicable test date be maintained for test\ndocumentation. CVR must document the type of test and specific date that these\ntests were performed for the existing Coffeyville assets and Atmos CPM system.\nThe documentation must also clarify the associated output of those tests so that\nthe documentation is complete and will provide clarification regarding that which\nis described in the Atmos International Operation and Maintenance manual. This\ndocumentation must be submitted to the Central Region Director and completed\nwithin 120 days of the receipt of the Final Order.\nB. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to records, procedures, or other forms\nof documentation used by CVR, which were not available to demonstrate\ncompliance with § 195.444 in operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and\ndispatcher training of the system, CVR must create API RP 1130 documentation\nrequirements and integrate those requirements within its CRM procedures.\nSpecifically, CVR’s CRM procedures must be amended to include reference to\nAPI 1130 Section 6.3 Operating Issues and must be amended to ensure that the\nfollowing issues are considered: API RP 1130 Section 6.3.1 Security, 6.3.2\nParameter Changes, 6.3.3 Pipeline System Maintenance Activities. A listing of\nthe instrumentation that is involved in the leak detection system shall also be\nprepared. Additionally, a process shall be established for how this\ninstrumentation will be adequately maintained between CVR and ROC.\nClarification in procedures and associated documentation shall be established to\ndefine the types of changes that will result in the required maintenance and how\nthe integrity of the CPM system will be maintained through instrumentation\nmaintenance or replacement. The procedures and documentation shall clarify\nwhen a task is considered as maintenance only and does not require retesting of\nthe Atmos system (changes requiring retests are described in paragraph A above).\nThis must also include a review of Section 6.6 CPM Documentation of API 1130\nand identify how the list of considerations were reviewed and clarify which of the\nconsiderations will be included with the CPM system implementation and\ndocumentation. All resulting documentation and procedures must be submitted to\nthe Central Region Director within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nC. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to API 1130 Section 6.5, Controller\nTraining and Retraining, CVR must require that users of the CPM system (i.e. the\nPipeline Controllers) and any CPM support staff receive appropriate CPM\n\n\n\ntraining specific to the Atmos system and specific to CVR. Along with support\nstaff, this training must include controllers scheduled to operate CVR and those\ncontrollers that are cross trained on the console with CVR assets, leads, managers,\nand supervisors over the CVR assets. Training must be completed, and training\ncontent along with records identifying who attended this training must be\nsubmitted, to the Central Region Director within 90 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder\nD. It is requested that CVR maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Gregory\nA. Ochs, Director, Central, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1)\ntotal cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n32022058NOPV_Final Order_01222024_(22-242811)_text.pdf\n\nJanuary 22, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kakuehn@cvrenergy.com\nKeith Kuehn\nVice President, Crude Transportation\nCoffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC\nP.O. Box 3516\n411 N.E. Washington Boulevard\nBartlesville, Oklahoma 74006\nRe: CPF No. 3-2022-058-NOPV\nDear Mr. Kuehn:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of\nthe allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, and assesses a reduced civil\npenalty of $55,200. It further finds that Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC has\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nWhen the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt\nas provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Blake Record, Safety Specialist – DOT Pipeline, Coffeyville Resources Crude\nTransportation, LLC, brecord@cvrenergy.com\n\n\n\nMr. Ronald McGill, DOT Compliance Primary, Coffeyville Resources Crude\nTransportation, LLC, rmcgill@cvrenergy.com\nMs. Janice T. DeVelasco, P.E., Vice President – Environmental, Health, and Safety,\nCoffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC, jdevelasco@cvrenergy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCoffeyville Resources Crude )\nTransportation, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-058-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 26 to 30, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninspected Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC’s (Coffeyville or Respondent)\nrecords for Control Room Management (CRM) in Houston, Texas. At the time of the inspection,\nCoffeyville pipeline assets were controlled by a third-party control room identified as the\nRemote Operations Center (ROC). From July 22, 2019, to October 1, 2021, the ROC was owned\nby LineStar Integrity Services, LLC. Presently, Everline Automation owns the ROC and\ncontrols the Coffeyville assets. Coffeyville’s pipeline system includes over 900 miles of\npipelines transporting crude oil.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 14, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order, which was amended on the same date by issuance of an Amended\nNotice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice).1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Coffeyville\nhad committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$141,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Coffeyville responded to the\nNotice by letter dated October 31, 2022 (Response). Coffeyville contested several of the\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be eliminated. Coffeyville met with the Director on April 11, 2023, and\nprovided a supplemental response on April 28, 2023, with supporting documentation\n(Supplemental Response). Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\n1 The Director issued the amended Notice to correct the proposed civil penalty.\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(c), which states:\n§ 195.444 Leak detection.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) CPM leak detection systems. Each computational pipeline\nmonitoring (CPM) leak detection system installed on a hazardous liquid\npipeline must comply with API RP 1130 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 195.3) in operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher\ntraining of the system.2\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(c) by failing to ensure the CPM\nleak detection system installed on its hazardous liquid pipeline complied with API RP 1130 in\noperating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Coffeyville failed to address the requirements in sections 6.2.6, 6.3, 6.5,\nand 6.6 of API RP 1130 for its Atmos CPM system.\nIn its Response, Coffeyville did not contest Item 1. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(c) by failing to ensure the CPM\nleak detection system installed on its hazardous liquid pipeline complied with API RP 1130 in\noperating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of the system.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that\ncould affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room\npersonnel by performing each of the following:\n(1) Implement section 7 of API RP 1168 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 195.3) for control room management change and require coordination\nbetween control room representatives, operator’s management, and\nassociated field personnel when planning and implementing physical\nchanges to pipeline equipment or configuration; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(1) by failing to ensure\nchanges that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room\npersonnel by implementing section 7 of API RP 1168. Specifically, the Notice alleged that when\nimplementing the Atmos leak detection system, Respondent failed to follow its CRM ROC\nprocedures and § 195.446(f)(1), which required documenting management of change (MOC)\n2 In a final rule published October 1, 2019, PHMSA reorganized the requirements of § 195.444 into paragraphs (a)\nand (c), and added a new provision in paragraph (b). Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, Final\nRule, 84 Fed. Reg. 52260, 52289 (Oct. 1, 2019).\n\n\n\nusing Form 11-15, to include: the reason for the change, authority for approving changes,\nanalysis of implementation, acquisition of required work permits, documentation,\ncommunication of change to affected parties, time limitations, and qualification of staff. The\nNotice alleged that PHMSA requested Coffeyville provide MOC documentation and a completed\nForm 11-15 for implementing the leak detection system, but Coffeyville was unable to provide\ndocumentation to demonstrate compliance with its procedures or § 195.446(f)(1).\nIn its Response, Coffeyville contested the alleged violation in Item 2, arguing that it coordinated\nwith the ROC during transition to the Atmos leak detection system, developed specific\nprocedures for change management, and prepared MOC notification documents, such as MOC\nForm 11-15 (dated 9/17/2018) and an MOC Notification document (dated 5/17/2018).\nCoffeyville provided copies of the referenced documents. In its Supplemental Response,\nCoffeyville provided additional records, including an MOC request form for the Natoma system\n(dated 6/5/2018). Respondent contended these records demonstrate it was in compliance and\nrequested that the item be reduced to a warning because any potential deviations from the\nregulation or its procedures were insignificant.\nAfter a thorough review of the record, I find that the documentation and records submitted by\nRespondent are insufficient to demonstrate compliance with MOC requirements when\nimplementing the Atmos leak detection system. Respondent’s CRM ROC procedures and\n§ 195.446(f)(1) required, at a minimum, that Respondent document MOC when implementing\nthe leak detection system including: the reason for the change, authority for approving changes,\nanalysis of implementation, acquisition of required work permits, documentation,\ncommunication of change to affected parties, time limitations, and qualification of staff. When\nreviewing the submitted Form 11-15 (dated 9/17/2018), that record identified only general\nchanges to operational control (e.g., “ROC will now possess sole ability to remotely control the\nCVR Pipeline system”), without any specific mention of implementing the leak detection system.\nThat form and other records submitted by Respondent for this Item fail to document all of the\nfollowing as required when implementing the Atmos leak detection: the reason for the change,\nauthority for approving changes, analysis of implementation, acquisition of required work\npermits, documentation, communication of change to affected parties, time limitations, and\nqualification of staff. Therefore, I find Respondent did not comply with its procedures and\n§ 195.446(f)(1).\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(f)(1) by failing to ensure that changes that could affect control room operations are\ncoordinated with the control room personnel by implementing section 7 of API RP 1168 when\nimplementing a leak detection system.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(2), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that\ncould affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room\npersonnel by performing each of the following:\n(1) . . . .\n\n\n\n(2) Require its field personnel to contact the control room when\nemergency conditions exist and when making field changes that affect\ncontrol room operations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(f)(2) by failing to ensure\nchanges that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control room\npersonnel by requiring its field personnel to contact the control room when emergency\nconditions existed and when making field changes that affected control room operations.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville personnel failed to coordinate and communicate\nwith the control room when making field changes that affected the control room on August 19\nand 20, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the Notice alleged, a pump was down for on-site testing, but\nthe controller was not aware of this action until contacting field personnel. On August 20, 2019,\nthe Notice alleged emergency shutdown devices were tested in the field without prior control\nroom notification.\nIn its Response, Coffeyville contested the alleged violation in Item 3, arguing it did coordinate\nand communicate with the control room when the field changes were made. On August 19,\n2019, Coffeyville stated the control room operator on duty was aware that operator personnel\nwere onsite for a set point test. On August 20, 2019, Coffeyville stated the station testing was a\ncollaboration between operator personnel and control room operators and therefore the on-duty\ncontroller was aware and participated in the testing. Coffeyville provided evidence of\ncommunications between control room personnel and operator personnel on August 19 related to\na set point test. Coffeyville also clarified that the control room operator notified operator\npersonnel of a shut valve, as required by the procedures, and not because the control room\noperator was unaware of the set point testing. Similarly, Coffeyville provided evidence of\ncommunication between control room personnel and operator personnel on August 20 related to\nstation testing. Coffeyville indicated that the on-duty controller participated in the testing, and\ntherefore was in communication with operator personnel.\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nrecommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 195.446(f)(2).\nBased upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 3 be withdrawn. Respondent is warned that\nfailure to maintain records demonstrating compliance may result in potential future enforcement.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program\nand review the training program content to identify potential improvements\nat least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nAn operator’s program must provide for training each controller to carry out\nthe roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the\ntraining program must include the following elements:\n(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur\n\n\n\nsimultaneously or in sequence;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1) by failing to establish a\ncontroller training program that included responding to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs)\nlikely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville\nfailed to develop a list of AOCs that are likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence and did\nnot have these elements identified as part of any training program conducted for controllers.\nIn its Response, Coffeyville contested the allegation of violation in Item 4, arguing that its\ntraining program included responding to AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.\nCoffeyville stated that all ROC controllers were trained and tested on scenarios involving\nsequential AOCs and that specific training exam questions on sequential AOCs were identified\nas question numbers 5, 7, and 11. Respondent provided documentation to support its position.\nIn its Supplemental Response, Respondent contended the records demonstrate it was in\nsubstantive compliance and requested that the item be reduced to a warning. Alternatively,\nCoffeyville argued the penalty should be reduced, which I address below in the civil penalty\nsection.\nAfter a thorough review of the record, I find that while Respondent’s training program included\nresponding to some AOCs, the program failed to include training on all AOCs likely to occur\nsimultaneously or in sequence. Section 10.2 of the CRM ROC procedures stated that AOC\ntraining includes “responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or\nin sequence . . . .” The CRM ROC procedures did not otherwise list the relevant AOCs or\ninclude any additional details. The ROC Controller-CVR Pipeline System Training Exam,\nquestion numbers 5, 7, and 11, asked only about responding to several AOCs (e.g., unexpected\nvalve closures and leak alarms), rather than the range of AOCs that could be experienced by the\nROC controllers operating Respondent’s pipeline system. Those third-party controllers may\npotentially also control other operators’ systems from the same console and may experience\nmultiple AOCs. PHMSA has previously determined that a failure to list AOCs constitutes a\nviolation of § 195.446(h)(1).3 As noted previously, operators cannot effectively conduct training\nwithout a complete list of AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.4\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Coffeyville violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(h)(1) by failing to establish a controller training program that included responding to\nAOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review\nduring inspection:\n(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this\n3 Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2021-013-NOPV, 2021 WL 5494048 (Nov. 1, 2021).\n4 Id., at 3.\n\n\n\nsection; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(1) by failing to maintain\nrecords that demonstrate compliance with § 195.446. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nCoffeyville failed to provide records demonstrating compliance with several requirements of\n§ 195.446(e) and (f) related to alarm management and MOC. For example, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent failed to document compliance using Form 11-10, Monthly Alarm Review and Form\n11-16, Alarm Deficiencies, as required by section 11 of its CRM ROC procedures. The Notice\nalso alleged that Respondent failed to maintain records to demonstrate controllers had reviewed\n","truncated":true,"body_characters":49879}