{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024022NOPV","title":"NGL CRUDE TERMINALS — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-05-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.446(a), 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(4), 195.446(e)(1), 195.446(e)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024022nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024022nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024022nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024022NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NGL CRUDE TERMINALS. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.446(a),  195.446(c)(1),  195.446(c)(4),  195.446(e)(1),  195.446(e)(2). The case was opened on 2024-05-08 and is reported as closed as of 2025-09-03. Proposed civil penalty: $21,200. Assessed civil penalty: $21,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024022NOPV_Closure Letter_09032025_(23-268060).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_Closure%20Letter_09032025_(23-268060).pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_Closure Letter_09032025_(23-268060)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_Closure%20Letter_09032025_(23-268060)_text.pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_Final Order_08132025_(23-268060).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_Final%20Order_08132025_(23-268060).pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_Final Order_08132025_(23-268060)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_Final%20Order_08132025_(23-268060)_text.pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Time Extension_06042024_(23-268060).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Time%20Extension_06042024_(23-268060).pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_PCP PCO_05082024_(23-268060).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_PCP%20PCO_05082024_(23-268060).pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_PCP PCO_05082024_(23-268060)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024022NOPV/32024022NOPV_PCP%20PCO_05082024_(23-268060)_text.pdf\n\n32024022NOPV_Final Order_08132025_(23-268060)_text.pdf\n\nAugust 13, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jeff.pinter@nglep.com\nJeff Pinter\nPresident and CEO\nNGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC\n6120 South Yale Avenue, Suite 1300\nTulsa, OK 74136\nRe: CPF No. 3-2024-022-NOPV\nDear Mr. Pinter:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $21,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by NGL\nSupply Terminal Company, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the\ndate of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosures (Final Order and NOPV)\ncc: Mr. David Barrett, Acting Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2024-022-NOPV\nPage 2\nMr. Eric S. Coleman, Director of Operations, Compliance, NGL Energy Partners, LP,\neric.coleman@nglep.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\nIn the Matter of )\nNGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC, )\na subsidiary of NGL Energy Partners, LP,) Respondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 3-2024-022-NOPV\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 5 to June 9, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), virtually\ninspected NGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC’s (NGL) control room management procedures\nin Cushing, Oklahoma. NGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC is a subsidiary of NGL Energy\nPartners, LP, a publicly traded midstream organization that provides multiple services to\nproducers and end-users, including transportation, storage, blending and marketing of crude oil,\nnatural gas liquids, refined products/renewables, and water solutions.\n1 NGL Supply Terminal\nCompany, LLC operates the Ambassador Pipeline, an eight-inch 225-mile anhydrous ammonia\npipeline that spans from Kalkaska, Michigan to Marysville, Michigan.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 8, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that NGL had committed three violations of 49 CFR Part 195, proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $21,200 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent\nto take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included an additional\nwarning item pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205, which warned Respondent to correct the probable\nviolation or face possible future enforcement action.\nNGL responded to the Notice by letter dated June 4, 2024 (Response). Respondent did not\ncontest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent also requested additional time\nto complete the proposed corrective actions. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\n1 NGL Energy Partners LP, “Who We Are,” https://www.nglenergypartners.com/about-ngl/ (last visited March 19,\n2025).\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, NGL did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 CFR Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its\ncontrollers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary\nfor the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has\ndefined by performing each of the following:\n(1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3)\nwhenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless the\noperator demonstrates that certain provisions of API RP 1165 are not\npractical for the SCADA system used;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(1) by failing to implement\nAPI RP 1165 whenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that NGL failed to implement API RP 1165 when it added the 225-mile Michigan\nAmbassador Pipeline to its SCADA system in September 2022.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(1) by failing to implement\nAPI RP 1165 whenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must\nhave a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller\nresponse to alarms. An operator’s plan must include provisions to:\n(1) Review SCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process that\nensures alarms are accurate and support safe pipeline operations;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(1) by failing to review\nSCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process that ensures alarms are accurate and\nsupport safe pipeline operations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NGL failed to consider\nthree types of alarms as safety-related and critical (rate of change, mass balance, and\ncommunication alarms) and failed to identify alarms according to its alarm priorities table in its\ncontrol room management plan.\n\n\n\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(1) by failing to review\nSCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process that ensures alarms are accurate and\nsupport safe pipeline operations.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(2), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must\nhave a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller\nresponse to alarms. An operator’s plan must include provisions to:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety\nthat have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,\ngenerated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods\nof time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating\nactivities;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(2) by failing to identify at\nleast once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the\nSCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or\nmanual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or\noperating activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NGL failed to have sufficient\nprocedures implementing section 195.446(e)(2) and failed to provide records that indicated it\nconducted the required monthly review.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(2) by failing to identify at\nleast once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the\nSCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or\nmanual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or\noperating activities.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\n\n\n\nrelated series of violations.\n2\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $21,200 for the violation cited above. Effective May 20, 2025,\nPHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy to use the version of the Civil\nPenalty Worksheet in effect when the alleged violation occurred. The new policy did not change\nthe proposed civil penalty in this case.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.446(e)(2), for failing to identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety\nthat have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false\nalarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for\nassociated maintenance or operating activities. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil\npenalty did not change the proposed civil penalty for this item. NGL contended that the\nproposed penalty should be reduced or withdrawn for three reasons. First, NGL stated it had no\nreason to believe its monthly reviews were not sufficient because this issue was not identified by\nthree recent state inspections (in 2018, 2020, and 2023). Second, NGL contended it was\nfollowing its existing procedure for monthly reviews but was unaware its procedure was not\nsufficient, and had NGL been aware, the duration of the violation would have different. Third,\nNGL stated that it began to implement corrective action before receiving the Notice.\nTurning to the assessment factors, I note that with respect to the nature of the violation, OPS\nselected that this was an “activities” violation as reflected in the Violation Report. An\n“activities” violation may be a failure to perform or conduct activities. I find that the record\nsupports this selection because NGL failed to conduct all required activities (the monthly alarm\nreview).\nWith respect to the circumstances of the violation, I note that NGL did not self-report the non-\ncompliance. Therefore, OPS appropriately selected that “PHMSA or a State Partner discovered\nthe violation” in the Violation Report. With respect to the duration of the violation, OPS alleged\nthat the violation occurred for “10 days or more.” While NGL claimed that the duration could\nhave been different if the non-compliance was identified during one of the recent state\ninspections, it did not otherwise dispute that this violation occurred for 10 days or more.\nWith respect to the gravity of the violation, OPS selected the lowest possible criteria for gravity\n(“Pipeline safety was minimally affected, notwithstanding the conditions above.”). The evidence\nsupports this selection. Therefore, there is no basis to reduce the penalty. The Violation Report\nnoted three instances of the violation and the evidence supports this selection. NGL did not\ncontest the number of instances of violation.\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\nWith respect to Respondent’s culpability, OPS alleged that NGL “failed to comply with an\napplicable requirement.” OPS did not allege that NGL intentionally violated the pipeline safety\nregulations. Therefore, NGL’s belief or intent (resulting from recent state inspections or\notherwise) did not impact this civil penalty calculation. Moreover, NGL is not entitled to a\npenalty reduction for its corrective actions because they were not performed prior to PHMSA’s\ndiscovery of the violations. Corrective action taken after PHMSA learns of the violation is not a\nbasis to reduce a civil penalty.\n3 I find that the record supports the culpability selection because\nNGL failed to conduct the requisite monthly alarm reviews.\nAs to good faith, NGL presented no circumstances beyond its control that would have prevented\nit from complying. As to history of prior offenses, the Violation Report noted that Respondent\ndid not have any prior offenses; therefore, this was already factored into the proposed penalty\namount. Lastly, Respondent did not claim the penalty would affect its ability to continue in\nbusiness.\nFor the above reasons, after considering the arguments provided to reduce the proposed penalty,\nI find NGL’s arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,200 for violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.446(e)(2).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 CFR § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 CFR § 901.9 and 49 CFR § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment\nis not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result\nin referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 CFR §§ 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(e)(1), and 195.446(e)(2), respectively. Under 49\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601.\n3 Toledo Refining Company LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 1-2022-028-NOPV, 2023 WL 2611154, at *4 (Mar. 22,\n2023); NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV, 2021 WL 5907916,\nat *5 (Dec. 1, 2021).\n\n\n\nWith regard to the violation of section 195.446(e)(1) (Item 3), Respondent requested an\nadditional 90 days to complete the corrective actions. In a recommendation for final action\nsubmitted pursuant to section 190.209(b)(7), the Director recommended extending the\ncompliance deadline as requested, but only if an update is provided after 90 days. I find it\nreasonable to extend the compliance deadline and require a status update by the original deadline\nproposed.\nWith regard to the violation of section 195.446(e)(2) (Item 4), Respondent requested an\nadditional 90 days to complete the corrective actions. In a recommendation for final action\nsubmitted pursuant to section 190.209(b)(7), the Director recommended extending the\ncompliance deadline as requested, but only if an update is provided after 90 days. I find it\nreasonable to extend the compliance deadline and require a status update by the original deadline\nproposed.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of section 195.446(c)(1) (Item 1), Respondent must\nconduct an audit of SCADA screens and system as well as the Style Guide/SCADA\nDesign Manual against API RP 1165 and provide records of the audit to the Director,\nCentral Region within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of section 195.446(e)(1) (Item 3), Respondent must\namend its procedure to include all categories identified in the SCADA master data\nbase as safety related and correctly implement in the SCADA data base all categories\nidentified in the data base. This also includes the considerations of alarms related to\nLeak Detection and training controllers on the procedure and safety related points.\nRespondent must provide an update on the status of this corrective action to the\nDirector, Central Region within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order. Respondent\nmust provide the amended procedures and any associated records of the completed\ncorrective actions to the Director, Central Region within 180 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of section 195.446(e)(2) (Item 4), Respondent must\namend its procedure to identify and review all points affecting safety that have been\ntaken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms,\nor that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required\nfor associated maintenance or operating activities and conduct two consecutive month\nreviews using the new process. Respondent must provide an update on the status of\nthis corrective action to the Director, Central Region within 90 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order. Respondent must provide the amended procedures, records of the\nmonthly reviews using the new process, and any other associated records of the\ncompleted corrective actions to the Director, Central Region within 180 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\n\n\n\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts),\nfor each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to section 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to test any backup\nSCADA systems at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15\nmonths in accordance with its control room management plan.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 CFR § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Jeff.pinter@nglep.com, eric.colman@nglep.com\nMay 8, 2024\nMr. Jeff Pinter\nPresident and CEO\nNGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC\n6120 South Yale Avenue, Suite 1300\nTulsa, OK 74136\nCPF 3-2024-022-NOPV\nDear Mr. Pinter:\nFrom June 5 to June 9, 2023, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode (U.S.C.), virtually inspected NGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC’s (NGL Supply) Control Room\nManagement (CRM) procedures in Cushing, Oklahoma.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable\nviolations are:\n1. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a controller\nworking in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a pipeline facility\nthrough a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow written control room\nmanagement procedures that implement the requirements of this section….\n(b) ….\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with the\ninformation, tools, processes and procedures necessary for the controllers to carry out the\nroles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each of the following:\n(1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) whenever a SCADA\nsystem is added, expanded or replaced, unless the operator demonstrates that certain\nprovisions of API RP 1165 are not practical for the SCADA system used.\nNGL Supply failed to verify that API RP 1165 had been implemented in the SCADA system and its Style\n\n\n\nGuide/SCADA Design Manual when it added the 225-mile Michigan Ambassador Pipeline to their\nSCADA system in September 2022, per the requirement of § 195.446(c)(1).\n2. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a controller\nworking in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a pipeline facility\nthrough a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow written control room\nmanagement procedures that implement the requirements of this section….\n(b) ….\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with the\ninformation, tools, processes and procedures necessary for the controllers to carry out the\nroles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each of the following:\n(1) ….\n(4) Test any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to\nexceed 15 months; and\nNGL Supply failed to follow its procedure, CRM Plan section 3.5.4.2, when it tested its backup SCADA\nsystems at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, per the requirements of\n§ 195.446(c)(4). Specifically, CRM Plan section 3.5.4.2 required a test period of 30 minutes. While NGL\nSupply’s controllers conducted a test monthly (more frequent than the procedure required), 7 out of 15\ntests reviewed did not last the full 30 minutes.\nThis failure to follow procedures was identified before the inspection and corrected by NGL Supply. No\nfurther action required.\n3. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a controller\nworking in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a pipeline facility\nthrough a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow written control room\nmanagement procedures that implement the requirements of this section….\n(b) ….\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written alarm\nmanagement plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An operator’s plan\nmust include provisions to:\n(1) Review SCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process that ensures alarms are\naccurate and support safe pipeline operations.\n\n\n\nNGL Supply’s SCADA Safety-Related Alarm List failed to ensure alarms were accurate and supported\nsafe pipeline operations by failing to define and implement safety related points and alarms, per the\nrequirements of § 195.446(e)(1). Specifically, three alarms were not considered safety related\npoints/alarms: rate of change, mass balance, and communication alarms. CRM Plan section 5.2.8\nprovided a table with a listing of safety related alarms and noted that, “these alarms will have the highest\nalarm priority and will generate the most critical alarm level.” Section 5.4.4 defined the Alarm Priorities\nas Critical (C), High (H), Medium (M), Low (L), and section 5.4.4.1.4 stated, “Critical Priority alarms are\nconsidered Safety Related Alarms for NGL Control Centers.” Rate of change (ROC) and mass balance\nalarms were used in SCADA for Leak Detection but were not defined in the Table of section 5.2.8 as\nsafety related alarms. NGL Supply’s ROC pressure and flow alarms for its Ambassador Pipeline were\nclassified low priority in the data base. This was done to reduce the number of false alarms to the\ncontroller. NGL Supply was in the process of refining these alarm set points to improve alarming for Leak\nDetection. The mass balance, which can be an indication of leaks, was set to high priority and not critical,\nso it was not included in the safety related category when it should have been. These actions resulted in\nunder reporting of safety related alarms related to leak detection. Also, communication failures were not\nconsidered safety related. By not including these alarms in section 5.2.8 and implementing them as lower\npriorities in the data base than defined through procedure, NGL Supply did not support safe pipeline\noperations.\nA review of the SCADA master database identified that some points were indicated with a\ncritical priority but not included in Table 5.2.8. These alarms were (1) “Gas Detect High High,”\n(2) “Temp Transmitter High High,” (3) “Density High High,” and (4) “Meter Temp High High.”\nNGL Supply also incorrectly identified multiple pressure information transmitters (PIT) as High\nrather than critical. These included PID-120, PIT 1201, PIT 1202, PID 2701, and PIT 2702.\nAdditionally, there were rapid rate of change alarms listed as low priority and most\ncommunication outages were labeled as low priority. PHMSA determined during the inspection\nthat there were gaps between the CRM Plan that defined safety related alarms and NGL Supply’s\nimplementation of safety related alarms and points. Thus, NGL Supply’s CRM Plan failed to\nhave an alarm management plan with sufficient review of SCADA safety-related alarm\noperations, in violation of § 195.446(e)(1).\n4. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a controller\nworking in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a pipeline facility\nthrough a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow written control room\nmanagement procedures that implement the requirements of this section….\n(b) ….\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written alarm\nmanagement plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An operator's plan\nmust include provisions to:\n(1) ….\n(2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken\noff scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have\nhad forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated\nmaintenance or operating activities.\n\n\n\nNGL Supply failed to complete the monthly review of points affecting safety that have been taken off\nscan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or\nmanual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating\nactivities, per the requirements of § 195.446(e)(2). PHMSA reviewed records for the months of December\n2020, April 2021, March 2022, and March 2023. These records identified that while NGL Supply\nreviewed several important factors related to operating alarms, it failed to review and document those\npoints affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,\ngenerated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that\nrequired for associated maintenance or operating activities. Thus, NGL Supply was not in compliance\nwith § 195. 446(e)(2).\nFurthermore, the CRM Plan section 5.1.2.16 detailed the requirement for the monthly review by\nonly restating the regulation. The CRM Plan referenced a review of nuisance alarms under\nprocedure “Nuisance Alarm Resolution Procedure.” False alarms are gathered under nuisance\nalarms. CRM Plan section 11.8 also restated the regulation and offered guidance on review of\nnuisance alarms. A review of the records identified four areas of review: (1) Key Performance\nIndicators (KPIs), (2) “Top 10 All Alarm Review,” (3) “Critical Alarm Review,” and (4) “Stale\nAlarm Review.” These reviews were not defined in a procedure in the CRM Plan. Therefore,\nNGL Supply failed to have, in practice, procedures to identify points affecting safety that have\nbeen taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or\nthat have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated\nmaintenance or operating activities, in violation of § 195.446(e)(2).\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$266,015 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,660,135 for a related series\nof violations. For violation occurring on or after January 6, 2023, and before December 28, 2023, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $257,664 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum\nof $2,576,627 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after March 21, 2022, and\nbefore January 6, 2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed $239,142 per violation per day the\nviolation persists, up to a maximum of $2,391,412 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after May 3, 2021, and before March 21, 2022, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$225,134 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for a related series\nof violations. For violation occurring on or after January 11, 2021, and before May 3, 2021, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of\n$2,225,034 for a 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 violation\npersists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or\nafter November 27, 2018, and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679.\nFor each violation involving LNG facilities, an additional penalty of not more than $79,875 occurring on\nor after July 31, 2019, and before January 11, 2021, may be imposed. For each violation involving LNG\nfacilities, an additional penalty of not more than $77,910 occurring on or after November 27, 2018, and\nbefore July 31, 2019, may be imposed.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable\n\n\n\nviolations and recommend that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $ 21,200 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n4 $ 21,200\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, and 4, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to NGL Supply. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nWarning Item\nWith respect to Item 2, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this\ncase and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at\nthis time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Failure to do so may result in additional\nenforcement action.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nEnforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along\nwith the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing your receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to respond as described in the enclosed Response\nOptions. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your\nright to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If\nyou are responding to this Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within\n30 days from receipt of this Notice. The Region Director may extend the period for responding upon a\nwritten request timely submitted demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2024-022-NOPV and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Eric Coleman, Director Operations-Compliance eric.colman@nglep.com\n\n\n\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to NGL Supply a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial\nrequirements to ensure the compliance of NGL Supply with the pipeline safety regulations:\nA. B. C. D. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice, pertaining to NGL Supply’s failure to verify that API\nRP 1165 had been implemented in the SCADA system or the Style Guide/SCADA\nDesign Manual, NGL Supply must conduct an audit of SCADA screens and system as\nwell as the Style Guide/SCADA Design Manual against API 1165 (incorporated by\nreference) within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item 3 of the Notice, pertaining to NGL Supply’s failure to define safety\nrelated points and alarms, NGL Supply must amend its procedure to include all categories\nidentified in the SCADA master data base as safety related and correctly implement in\nthe SCADA data base all categories identified in the data base. This also includes the\nconsiderations of alarms related to Leak Detection and training controllers on the\nprocedure and safety related points within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item 4 of the Notice, pertaining to NGL Supply’s failure to complete the\nmonthly review of points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA\nhost, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual\nvalues for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or\noperating activities, NGL Supply must amend its procedure to identify and review all\npoints affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms\ninhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of\ntime exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating activities within 90\ndays of receipt of the Final Order. NGL Supply must also conduct two consecutive\nmonth reviews using the new process within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order\nIt is requested that NGL Supply maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Gregory Ochs,\nDirector, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n32024022NOPV_Closure Letter_09032025_(23-268060)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\n901 Locust Street, Suite 480\nKansas City, MO 64106\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: travis.cundiff@nglep.com; eric.coleman@nglep.com;\nSeptember 3, 2025\nMr. Travis Cundiff, VP Asset Operations\nNGL Supply Terminal Company, LLC\n612","truncated":true,"body_characters":40956}