{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32025017NOA","title":"COUNTRYMARK REFINING AND LOGISTICS, LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2025-07-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(a), 195.402(d)(4), 195.446(a), 195.446(b)(3), 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(d)(2), 195.446(e)(1), 195.446(e)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025017noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025017noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025017noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32025017NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving COUNTRYMARK REFINING AND LOGISTICS, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(d)(4),  195.446(a),  195.446(b)(3),  195.446(c)(1),  195.446(d)(2),  195.446(e)(1),  195.446(e)(3). The case was opened on 2025-07-02 and is reported as closed as of 2025-09-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32025017NOA_Closure Letter_09172025_(24-297198).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025017NOA/32025017NOA_Closure%20Letter_09172025_(24-297198).pdf\n\n32025017NOA_Closure Letter_09172025_(24-297198)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025017NOA/32025017NOA_Closure%20Letter_09172025_(24-297198)_text.pdf\n\n32025017NOA_Notice of Amendment_07022025_(24-297198).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025017NOA/32025017NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_07022025_(24-297198).pdf\n\n32025017NOA_Notice of Amendment_07022025_(24-297198)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025017NOA/32025017NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_07022025_(24-297198)_text.pdf\n\n32025017NOA_Operator Response to Notice_07252025_(24-297198).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025017NOA/32025017NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07252025_(24-297198).pdf\n\n32025017NOA_Notice of Amendment_07022025_(24-297198)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: matt.smorch@countrymark.com, blair.currie@countrymark.com\nJuly 2, 2025\nMr. Matt Smorch\nPresident and CEO\nCountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC\n225 S. East St, Suite 144\nIndianapolis, IN 46202\nCPF 3-2025-017-NOA\nDear Mr. Smorch:\nFrom August 5 through September 24, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), inspected the plans and procedures for Control Room Management (CRM) of\nCountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC (CountryMark) in Mount Vernon, Indiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the following apparent inadequacies within\nCountryMark’s plans or procedures. The items inspected, alleged inadequacies, and proposed\nrevisions are described below:\n1. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nand appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.\nThis manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system\ncommence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) . . . .\n\n\n\n(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must\ninclude procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits\nhave been exceeded:\n(1) . . . .\n(4) Notifying responsible operator personnel when notice of an abnormal operation is\nreceived.\nCountryMark’s CRM Program (rev. 14, effective July 2024) (CRM Plan), section 3.5.2, and its\nOperation and Maintenance Plan, (rev. 5, effective August 25, 2020) (O&M Plan), Procedure\n195.402(d), were not adequate to ensure notification of responsible operator personnel when notice\nof an abnormal operation (AO) is received, per the requirements of § 195.402(d)(4). Specifically,\nthe CRM Plan and O&M Plan failed to require field personnel to call the control room when an\nAO is discovered, and failed to define who is responsible for documenting AOs and the method of\ndocumenting and recording them.\n49 CFR § 195.402(d)(4) requires an operator to notify “responsible operator personnel when notice\nof an abnormal operation is received” and § 195.446(f)(2) requires an operator’s field personnel\n“to contact the control room when emergency conditions exist and when making field changes that\naffect control room operations.” O&M Plan, Procedure 195.402(d), step 9 failed to include a step\nfor field personnel to call the control room when an AO is discovered. This step was a part of\nCountryMark’s practice, but it was not included in their procedure.\nO&M Plan, section 14, “Abnormal Operation Incident Report,” required reporting of an AO on a\nform with no further reference. O&M Plan section 16, step 1, stated that the supervisor at the site\nof the AO will complete Form “F-195.402(d)(5) Abnormal Operation: Procedure Review.”\nHowever, the form itself stated the Manager of Pipeline Operations or the Pipeline Terminal\nManager reviews the form, assesses it, and documents “any revisions that should be made to\nCountryMark procedures.” This is not included in the O&M Plan. Additionally, O&M Plan,\nProcedure 195.402(d), step 2 listed additional personnel who were authorized to review the AO\nresponse to determine its effectiveness.\nThe control room, however, uses a different process to document AOs. CRM Plan section 3.5.2.6\nonly required the controller to document and communicate the AO condition during shift\nhandover. CRM Plan, section 7.2, stated:\nThe Pipeline Controller will document by making a log entry in POEMS CRM\nSoftware Suite when and under what circumstances the control room is contacted\nby field personnel concerning changes that could affect control room operations.\nThese along with internal data such as near miss, [Abnormal Operating Condition]\ndocumentation and incident data are reviewed by the Pipeline Control Center\nSupervisor to confirm contact to the control room is being made as required.\nDuring the inspection, the operator demonstrated that the application POEMS CRM Software Suite\nwas used for logging and documenting AOs. It is unclear, however, from the two procedures—\nthe O&M and CRM Plan—whether the two methods of reporting AOs are merged into one record\nand reviewed, or if there are separate reviews.\n\n\n\nTherefore, both the CRM Plan and O&M Plan require revision to meet the requirements of\n§§ 195.446(b)(2), 195.402(d)(4), and 195.446(f)(2). These procedures must be amended to\ninclude: a requirement for field personnel to contact the control room if they identify an abnormal\noperation, the method for controllers to document the AO consistent with the current practice,\nconsistency between all O&M procedures for who is responsible for completing and reviewing the\nAbnormal Operation Incident Report, and how the POEM CRM Software Suite will be\nincorporated into these reviews.\n2. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a\ncontroller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a\npipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the requirements of\nthis section. . . .\n(b) Roles and responsibilities. Each operator must define the roles and responsibilities\nof a controller during normal, abnormal, and emergency operating conditions. To\nprovide for a controller's prompt and appropriate response to operating conditions,\nan operator must define each of the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(3) A controller's role during an emergency, even if the controller is not the first to\ndetect the emergency, including the controller's responsibility to take specific actions\nand to communicate with others.\nThe CRM Plan, section 3.5.3, was not adequate to demonstrate compliance with § 195.446(b)(3)\nbecause it did not define a controller’s role during an emergency. Specifically, it did not provide\na process for approval to restart the pipeline after a shut down. CRM Plan section 3.2, “Authority\nand Responsibility,” stated, \"the Pipeline Controller on duty has the authority and responsibility\nto shut down any pipeline which they are operating if there are any possible indications of a\nrelease.\" This section also provided that restart requires approval from the “Manager of Pipeline\nMaintenance, Pipeline Operations Manager, Pipeline Control Center Supervisor, or the Director\nof Midstream.” CRM Plan section 3.5.3 stated,\n“the Pipeline Controller can start-up the line after\napproval from the Manager of Pipeline Maintenance, Operations Supervisor, or the Manager of\nCrude Gathering and Transportation.”\nHowever, O&M Plan, Procedure 195.402(e), “Emergency Response,” section 10.3, stated,\n“[t]he\nresponsibility for all actions in response to an emergency, rests with the Pipeline Superintendent.\nHe will determine shutdowns, isolation of line segments, repairs, tests, and restarts as required….”\nThis appears to conflict with the CRM Plan, especially since controllers are directed to follow\nO&M Plan, Procedure 195.402(e), “Emergency Response,” in CRM Plan section 3.5.3.\nCountryMark did not have a detailed process of defining how the decision to restart will be made,\nhow that decision will be documented, and how the decision will be communicated to the\ncontroller. The practice in place was not consistent. CountryMark personnel indicated during the\ninspection that sometimes the authorization was given verbally and sometimes written, through\nemail. The decision to restart after shutdown, especially after an indication of rupture or leak, is a\n\n\n\ncritical decision to avoid the potential for exacerbating the situation and contributing more to an\nevent, and therefore, it should be clearly detailed in the procedure.\nAdditionally, section 10.3 of O&M Plan, Procedure 195.402(e), “Emergency Response,” stated,\n\"[a]ll emergencies should be called into the dispatcher.\" This makes calling into the control room\n(dispatcher) optional. Having the call, which reports the presence of an emergency, be optional\nhinders a controller’s ability to execute their role during emergencies. Controllers must be notified\nof emergencies for controllers to execute their roles and responsibilities during emergencies.\nIn addition, § 195.402(e)(10) requires an operator’s manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies to include procedures for actions to be taken by a controller during an emergency, in\naccordance with the emergency plans required by § 195.446. Considering the inadequate\nprocedures described above which failed to meet the compliance requirements of § 195.446(b)(3),\nthe procedures were also inadequate to satisfy § 195.402(e)(10).\nThe procedures must be amended to provide clear and consistent processes defining who has the\nauthority for restart after a pipeline shut down for reasons other than normal operations.\nConsiderations for the determination of restart must be included. The procedure also must define\nthe method to document the authorization for restart and its communication to the control room.\n3. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a\ncontroller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a\npipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the requirements of\nthis 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\nout the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each of the\nfollowing:\n(1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) whenever a\nSCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless the operator demonstrates\nthat certain provisions of API RP 1165 are not practical for the SCADA system used;\nCountryMark’s CRM Plan, section 4.4, was not adequate to demonstrate compliance with\n§ 195.446(c)(1) for providing controllers the information, tools, processes, and procedures to carry\nout their responsibilities. Specifically, CountryMark did not provide definitions or examples of\n“added, expanded or replaced” related to when to implement API RP 1165 in its SCADA system.\nAbsent definitions or examples, the CRM Plan does not provide sufficient guidance on when to\nimplement API RP 1165. Furthermore, CRM Plan, section 4.4, misstated the regulation. Section\n4.4 used the language,\n“modified, expanded, or replaced,” whereas the language of the regulation\nis “added, expanded or replaced.” Additionally, Form F-195.446(c)(1) stated, “[t]his form should\nbe completed after a SCADA system change is added, expanded or repaired.” “Repaired” is an\ninappropriate word and is not consistent with to the procedure or regulatory language.\n\n\n\nThe procedure must be amended to provide definitions for added, expanded, and replaced, as well\nas examples that reflect the definitions. Also, the procedure and form must be amended to reflect\nthe regulatory language.\n4. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a\ncontroller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a\npipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the requirements of\nthis section .\n(b) . . . .\n(d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following methods to\nreduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could inhibit a controller's\nability to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Educate controllers and supervisors in fatigue mitigation strategies and how off-\nduty activities contribute to fatigue.\nCountyMark’s CRM Plan, section 5.9, and related Form F-195.446(h), were not adequate to\ndemonstrate that controllers and supervisors were educated in fatigue mitigation strategies and\nhow off-duty activities contribute to fatigue, as required by § 195.446(d)(2). CRM Plan, section\n5.9, listed criteria to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of the fatigue training program.\nFor example, criteria listed included “[i]ncrease in Pipeline Controller reports of potential fatigue”\nand “[i]ncrease use of fatigue mitigation tactics.” However, the CRM Plan did not provide values\nor measures to determine effectiveness of the training. Absent values or measures to determine\neffectiveness, it cannot be determined that the education program had any effect.1 Additionally,\nsection 5.9 required test scoring; however, no corresponding test was included on Form F-\n195.446(h). Form F-195.446(h) only considered training completion.\nCountry Mark used Form 195.446(h) as the form to document a review of the fatigue training\nprogram. Form F-195.446(h) did not include all the criteria listed in CRM Plan section 5.9. CRM\nPlan section 5.9 listed “Increase in Pipeline Controller reports of potential fatigue” but the form\nprovided for “Number of reports of fatigue or potential fatigue;” however, the form had no history\nof data section to calculate a difference, year-on-year or greater. None of the other criteria listed\nin CRM Plan, section 5.9, were included in the form.\nThe CRM Plan needs to be amended to provide measures to support the criteria for determining\ntraining effectiveness. Form F-195.446(h) needs to be amended to require the documentation of\nthe criteria data, analysis, findings and document the review to determine if the fatigue education\nand training program is effective once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months.\n1 Per § 195.402(a) and (c)(13), respectively, the manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies must be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective; and the manual must include procedures for periodically\nreviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\n\n\n\n5. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a\ncontroller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a\npipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the requirements of\nthis section.\n(b) . . . .\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written\nalarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An\noperator's plan must include provisions to:\n(1) Review SCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process that ensures\nalarms are accurate and support safe pipeline operations.\nCountryMark’s Alarm Management Program (rev. 3, effective October 2012) (ALM Plan), section\n1.7, “Roles and Responsibilities,” was not adequate to demonstrate compliance with having a\nprocess that ensures alarms are accurate and support safe pipeline operations, as required by\n§ 195.446(e)(1). Specifically, the ALM Plan required the controller to “[i]nitiate work requests to\nrepair malfunctioning field devices responsible for nuisance alarms.” CountryMark employed a\nwork order system named “The D365 System” (D365). Controllers could create and submit a\nticket to D365 that is reviewed by the supervisor or manager of the control room. The ticket then\nwas sent to field operations for further review. The field operations assigned the ticket to a group\nor individual for follow-up. This process was not described or detailed in any process or training\ncontent. There are various priority levels in D365 to assign to tickets which represent time\nrequirements for tickets to be completed. Examples include annual maintenance tasks, complete\nin 30 days, etc. These priorities, or how to select the appropriate priority for a task, were not\nidentified in any procedure. As “[i]nitiate work requests” is specifically identified in a controller’s\nroles and responsibilities, there should be a procedure and training content for D365, since it is\nused to initiate SCADA safety-related alarm operations reviews.\nWhile the D365 system is a powerful tool to create, assign, and document work, there was not a\nprocess to track progress or completion of tickets to verify the priority requirements were being\nmet or to escalate tickets that were exceeding the priority established time limits. Exceeding\npriority time limits would be considered a deficiency of CountryMark’s ALM Plan required by\n§ 195.446(e)(6).\nThe ALM Plan must be amended to detail the conditions and steps to create a work ticket in the\nD365 system. It must define the priorities and time limits to complete the ticket and define who\nis responsible for the review and the frequency of the review of completed and outstanding work\ntickets for control room generated tickets. The ALM Plan also needs to include a process for\nescalation of review where there is a designated exceedance of the priority limits.\n6. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a\ncontroller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a\n\n\n\npipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the requirements of\nthis section.\n(b) . . . .\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written\nalarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An\noperator's plan must include provisions to:\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Verify the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions\nwhen associated field instruments are calibrated or changed and at least once each\ncalendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nCountryMark’s CRM Plan, section 6.6, was not adequate to demonstrate compliance with\n§ 195.446(e)(3) because it simply restated the regulation and did not provide a process to identify\nwho is responsible for the review, how the review will be conducted, what information will be\nused as the set point and description standard, how identified deficiencies will be documented, and\nhow the activity for the verification will be recorded.\nThe CRM Plan must be amended to provide details on who is responsible for the review, how the\nreview will be conducted, what information will be used as the set point and description standard,\nhow identified deficiencies will be documented, and how the activity for the verification will be\nrecorded. This must include considerations for when field instruments are calibrated or changed\nas well as at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 CFR § 190.206. Enclosed as part\nof this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement\nProceedings.\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of\nthe document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 CFR § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\n\n\n\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that CountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of\nAmendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to the Director,\nCentral Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence\nconcerning this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2025-017-NOA and, for each document you submit,\nplease provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Blair Currie, Manager Pipeline Integrity, CountryMark, blair.currie@countrymark.com\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n\n32025017NOA_Closure Letter_09172025_(24-297198)_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: matt.smorch@countrymark.com, blair.currie@countrymark.com\nSeptember 17, 2025\nMr. Matt Smorch\nPresident and CEO\nCountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC\n225 S. East St, Suite 144\nIndianapolis, IN 46202\nRE: CPF 3-2025-017-NOA\nDear Mr. Smorch:\nFrom August 5 through September 24, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), inspected the plans and procedures for Control Room Management (CRM) of\nCountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC (CountryMark) in Mount Vernon, Indiana.\nOn July 2, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.206, PHMSA issued a Notice of Amendment which\nproposed amendment of CountryMark’s plans and procedures.\nCountryMark submitted its amended procedures on September 17, 2025. PHMSA has reviewed\nthe amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in the Notice of Amendment\nhave been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary, and this case is now closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Blair Currie, Manager Pipeline Integrity, CountryMark, blair.currie@countrymark.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":24909}