{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32025022NOPV","title":"COUNTRYMARK REFINING AND LOGISTICS, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2025-07-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 195.444(c), 195.446(a), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(c)(3), 195.446(c)(4), 195.446(h).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025022nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025022nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32025022nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32025022NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COUNTRYMARK REFINING AND LOGISTICS, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.444(c),  195.446(a),  195.446(c)(2),  195.446(c)(3),  195.446(c)(4),  195.446(h). The case was opened on 2025-07-18 and is reported as open. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32025022NOPV_Final Order_10142025_(24-297198).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025022NOPV/32025022NOPV_Final%20Order_10142025_(24-297198).pdf\n\n32025022NOPV_Final Order_10142025_(24-297198)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025022NOPV/32025022NOPV_Final%20Order_10142025_(24-297198)_text.pdf\n\n32025022NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_07312025_(24-297198).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025022NOPV/32025022NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07312025_(24-297198).pdf\n\n32025022NOPV_PCO_07182025_(24-297198).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025022NOPV/32025022NOPV_PCO_07182025_(24-297198).pdf\n\n32025022NOPV_PCO_07182025_(24-297198)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32025022NOPV/32025022NOPV_PCO_07182025_(24-297198)_text.pdf\n\n32025022NOPV_Final Order_10142025_(24-297198)_text.pdf\n\nOctober 14, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: matt.smorch@countrymark.com\nMatt Smorch\nPresident and CEO\nCountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC\n225 South East Street, Suite 144\nIndianapolis, IN 46202\nRe: CPF No. 3-2025-022-NOPV\nDear Mr. Smorch:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. When the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by\ne-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided\nunder 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: David Barrett, Acting Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nBlair Currie, Manager Pipeline Integrity, CountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC,\nblair.currie@countrymark.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 )\nCountryMark Refining and )\nLogistics, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2025-022-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 18, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.207, the Acting Director, Central Region, Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice) to CountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC (Respondent). The Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had violated the pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Part 195. The\nNotice also proposed certain measures to correct the violations. Respondent did not contest the\nallegations of violation or corrective measures.\nPursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213, I find Respondent violated the pipeline safety regulations listed\nbelow, as more fully described in the enclosed Notice, which is incorporated by reference:\n49 CFR § 195.444(c) (Item 1) ─ Respondent failed to comply with API RP 1130\nin operating, maintaining, testing, record keeping, and dispatcher training of its\ncomputational pipeline monitoring leak detection system.\n49 CFR § 195.446(c)(2) (Item 2) ─ Respondent failed to have and follow written\ncontrol room management procedures for conducting a point-to-point verification\nbetween SCADA displays and related field equipment when field equipment is\nadded or moved and when other changes that affect pipeline safety are made to\nfield equipment or SCADA displays.\n49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3) (Item 3) ─ Respondent failed to have and follow written\ncontrol room management procedures to test and verify an internal\ncommunication plan to provide adequate means for safe manual operation of the\npipeline, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15\nmonths.\n\n\n\n49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4) (Item 4) ─ Respondent failed to have and follow written\ncontrol room management procedures to test its backup SCADA system at least\nonce each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\n49 CFR § 195.446(h) (Item 5) ─ Respondent failed to establish a controller\ntraining program that trained each controller to carry out their roles and\nresponsibilities.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCompliance Actions\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nactions proposed in the enclosed Notice to correct the violations. The Director may grant an\nextension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely\nsubmitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Upon completion\nof the ordered actions, Respondent may request that the Director close the case. Failure to\ncomply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties under 49 CFR § 190.223\nor in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 CFR\n§ 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: matt.smorch@countrymark.com,\nblair.curry@countrymark.com\nJuly 18, 2025\nMr. Matt Smorch\nPresident and CEO\nCountryMark Refining and Logistics, LLC\n225 S. East St, Suite 144\nIndianapolis, IN 46202\nCPF 3-2025-022-NOPV\nDear Mr. Smorch:\nFrom August 5 through September 24, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), conducted an inspection of CountryMark Refining and\nLogistics, LLC’s (CountryMark) Control Room Management procedures and records in Mt.\nVernon, Indiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that CountryMark has committed probable violations of\nthe Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\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.\nCountryMark failed to comply with API RP 1130 in operating, maintaining, testing, record\nkeeping, and dispatcher training of the system as required by § 195.444(c).\n\n\n\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA reviewed CountryMark’s procedures related to its computational\npipeline monitoring (CPM) leak detection system and observed that CountryMark relied on a\nthird-party vendor for all CPM activities other than control room monitoring. This third-party\nvendor conducted off-site monitoring of the CPM system and would also conduct reviews of any\nfalse alarms, data base and algorithm updates. The third-party vendor also offered training, upon\nrequest, for CountryMark’s controllers and control room staff.\nThe operator relied entirely on the third-party contractor to carry out the requirements outlined in\nAPI RP 1130 as it related to CountryMark’s CPM leak detection system. A review of\nCountryMark’s manual demonstrated that there were no operator procedures in place to verify\ncompliance with API RP 1130’s requirements by the third-party vendor, including the API RP\n1130 requirement to conduct an initial test of the CPM system, the requirement to train\ncontrollers in how to use the CPM leak detection system, the requirement to maintain records of\nany maintenance or changes to the CPM leak detection system, and the requirements for making\nsure the instruments used in gathering data such as pressure or temperature transmitters or\ndefining the output of the CPM system were set to certain specifications. CRM Plan Section\n1.5.1 did not include API RP 1130 as a reference used to develop and implement the CRM Plan.\nCountryMark is responsible for making sure that any CPM leak detection program installed on\nits pipeline complies with the pipeline safety regulations. A request was made for the initial test\nwhen the CPM leak detection was installed, and no record was provided.1 The operator\nindicated no other test of the CPM system had been conducted as required by API RP 1130.\nTherefore, CountryMark failed to comply with API RP 1130, as required pursuant to\n§ 195.444(c).\n2. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with\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\nthe information, tools, processes and procedures necessary for the controllers to\ncarry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each\nof the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field\nequipment when field equipment is added or moved and when other changes that\naffect pipeline safety are made to field equipment or SCADA displays.\n1 See API Recommended Practice 1130, “Computational Pipeline Monitoring for Liquids:\nPipeline Segment,” 3rd edition, September 2007, (API RP 1130), at 6.2.2 (“...a new CPM system\nshould be tested to verity that it has achieved the design or expected performance and to establish\na baseline of performance.”).\n\n\n\nCountryMark failed to have and follow procedures and forms for conducting a point-to-point\nverification between SCADA displays and related field equipment when field equipment is\nadded or moved and when other changes that affect pipeline safety are made to field equipment\nor SCADA displays that were compliant with § 195.446(c)(2).\nPHMSA reviewed CountryMark’s procedures on how to conduct a point-to-point verification\nbetween SCADA displays in the control room and the field for when field equipment is added,\nmoved, or otherwise changed, by inspecting its Control Room Management (CRM) Plan, Section\n4.5 Point-to-Point Verification, and the procedure attached to its Form F-195.446(c)(2). PHMSA\nfound that CountryMark’s CRM Plan, Section 4.5 Point-to-Point Verification, and the associated\nprocedure attached to form F-195.446(c)(2) did not support the verification of the point-to-point\ntest. Additionally, during the PHMSA inspection, PHMSA reviewed CountryMark’s records for\npoint-to-point verification for RP025-PTB on May 1, 2024, for N450-T502 on November 15,\n2023, and for the 2024 Peru Project. CountryMark personnel used form F-195.446(c)(2) Point-\nto-Point Verification to document the point-to-point activity. While reviewing the records,\nPHMSA observed that a number of details were missing from the documentation. Missing\ndetails in the procedures and records included: the location sequence match between SCADA\nand field equipment, whether the test was live or simulated, and verification that all screens\nwhere a point presented were verified and verification that the alarms presented at the correct set\npoint with the correct priority and description. This information is necessary to conduct a point-\nto-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment because the point-to-\npoint verification is the first step in verifying the information presented to the controller is\ncorrect for the live field value, alarming and represents accurately the field device and its\nlocation on the SCADA display.\nTherefore, CountryMark was not in compliance with § 195.446(c)(2).\n3. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with\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\nthe information, tools, processes and procedures necessary for the controllers to\ncarry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each\nof the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Test and verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate means for\nmanual operation of the pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at\nintervals not to exceed 15 months;\nCountryMark failed to have and follow procedures and forms for testing and verifying an\ninternal communication plan to provide adequate means for safe manual operation of the\n\n\n\npipeline, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, that were\ncompliant with § 195.446(c)(3).\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, PHMSA reviewed CountryMark’s CRM Plan Section 4.6 and its\ncorresponding form, F-195.446(c)(3). When reviewing CRM Plan Section 4.6, PHMSA\nobserved that paragraphs 4.6.1 and 4.6.6 did not provide controllers sufficient detail and\ndirection regarding what was required to manually operate and document the pipeline if\nabnormal conditions leading to a catastrophic failure of SCADA or the communication system\noccurred. The procedures lacked any instructions on how the pipeline system would be\nmonitored and documented if CountryMark needed to implement manual operation. There were\ninstructions on how to shut down the system, but no considerations for how to document shut\ndown was complete, how leak detection was to continue, or for monitoring and reporting\nabnormal operating conditions and emergencies. This information is necessary to test and verify\nan internal communication plan for safe manual operation of the pipeline because even though\nthe pipeline is shut down and not moving product, the pipeline is still operating and several\nfunctions that are monitored and controlled from the control room must continue to ensure\npipeline safety.\nPHMSA also reviewed CountryMark’s form F-195.446(c)(3), entitled “Testing of the Internal\nCommunication Plan,” and used by operator personnel when documenting tests of the Internal\nCommunications Plan. PHMSA specifically looked at the forms used during the calendar years\n2021, 2022, and 2023 and identified that the test of the Internal Communications Plan consisted\nof two segments: a test of communication failure and a checklist to verify controller knowledge\nof actions to be taken in the event of a lost in communications. PHMSA observed that rather\nthan actually testing the specified Plan, the exercise evaluated the controller’s knowledge\nregarding procedural and operational practices required for the safe manual operation of the\npipeline. This does not constitute testing the plan.\nIn light of these deficiencies, CountryMark was not in compliance with § 195.446(c)(3).\n4. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with\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\nthe information, tools, processes and procedures necessary for the controllers to\ncarry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each\nof the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(4) Test any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year, but at\nintervals not to exceed 15 months; and\n\n\n\nCountryMark failed to have and follow procedures to test its backup SCADA server at least once\neach calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, as required by § 195.446(c)(4).\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, PHMSA observed that while CountryMark did not have a\nbackup control room, it did have a backup server. Specifically, CountryMark had two servers\nthat were geographically separate but operated together. CountryMark designed the primary\nserver to automatically switch to the secondary backup server upon failure. Thus, the secondary\nserver was a functional backup SCADA system to the primary server. CountryMark did not\nview this as a backup SCADA system; therefore, it did not have procedures to test it. PHMSA\nlearned during its inspection that CountryMark’s IT Group, who managed the maintenance of the\nservers, would perform a swap of the servers during periods of maintenance, but this procedure\nwas completed on an as-needed basis, was informal, and not documented.\nTherefore, CountryMark was not in compliance with § 195.446(c)(4).\n5. § 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with\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(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\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....\nCountryMark failed to establish a controller training program with content to provide training to\neach controller on how to carry out the controller’s roles and responsibilities defined by the\noperator as required.\nPHMSA reviewed CountryMark’s CRM Plan, Section 9.3, which included a list of 26 topics\nincluded in the training. PHMSA also reviewed CountryMark’s CRM Plan, Section 9.3, which\nprovided a framework for controller training beginning with an initial training that lasted for 90\ndays and included controller orientation, fatigue training, third-party computer-based training\nand operator qualification. This 90-day training, per the CRM Plan, would then be followed by\nanother 90 days of operational training that would provide the trainee with on-the-job training\nsupervised by a qualified controller trainer. The CRM Plan stated that the qualified controller\ntrainer would evaluate the trainee during this period and complete form F-195.446(h)(3), entitled\n“90 Day OTJT Check-List,” which was a checklist assessment of the trainee’s familiarity with\nvarious sections of the CRM Plan.\nWhile CountryMark had the above-mentioned CRM Plan, CountryMark did not establish a\ncontroller training program with training program content that could be reviewed to identify\npotential improvements. CountryMark did not develop training program content to uniformly\n\n\n\ninstruct controllers on how to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Rather the training\nemployed merely consisted of discussions with the trainee about the 26 topics. This process did\nnot denote what competencies a trainee was required to demonstrate to receive an acceptable\nperformance rating, or what metrics would be used to evaluate their knowledge or ability to carry\nout their assigned roles and responsibilities. Further, absent consistent, uniform training program\ncontent, there was no means by which CountryMark could carry out a substantive review of the\nprogram to identify potential improvements in the training. No uniform content for this training\nhad been developed. Rather the training merely consisted of discussions with the trainee about\nthe 26 topics. Therefore, CountryMark was not in compliance with § 195.446(h).\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$272,926 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,729,245 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after December 28, 2023 and before\nDecember 30, 2024 the maximum penalty may not exceed $266,015 per violation per day the\nviolation persists, up to a maximum of $2,660,135 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after January 6, 2023 and before December 28, 2023 the maximum penalty may\nnot exceed $257,664 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,576,627\nfor a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after March 21, 2022 and before\nJanuary 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\nexceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for\na related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after January 11, 2021 and before\nMay 3, 2021 the maximum penalty may not exceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation\npersists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after July 31, 2019, and before January 11, 2021 the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for\na related series of violations.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to propose a civil penalty assessment at this time.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to CountryMark. Please\nrefer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made 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\n\n\n\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 your receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to respond as described in the enclosed\nResponse Options. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes\na waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to\nyou and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you submit\nyour correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. The Region\nDirector may extend the period for responding upon a written request timely submitted\ndemonstrating good cause for an extension.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2025-022-NOPV and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nDave Barrett\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Blair Curry, Manager Pipeline Integrity, Blair.Currie@CountryMark.com\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\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to CountryMark a Compliance Order incorporating\nthe following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of CountryMark with the pipeline\nsafety regulations:\nA. B. C. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to CountryMark’s failure to have a procedure\nto comply with API RP 1130 as required by § 195.444 and failing to have conducted an\ninitial test of the CPM system, CountryMark must develop procedures to comply with the\nrequirements of API RP 1130 and conduct and document an initial test of the CPM\nsystem.\n(1) Within 150 days of receipt of the Final Order, CountryMark must present to the\nRegion Director the procedures for review and approval.\n(2) Within 210 days of receipt of the Final Order, CountryMark must conduct and\ndocument a test of the CPM system, address and correct any findings and action\nitems, and present to the Region Director for review and approval documentation\nshowing the test results, action items, and corrections. This test would constitute\nthe initial test requirement.\nIn regard to Item 2 of the Notice pertaining to CountryMark’s procedures and point-to-\npoint verifications being not thorough to demonstrate compliance, CountryMark must\ndevelop procedures and forms to document the verification. The procedure and form(s)\nmust be presented to the Region Director within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order for\nreview and approval. CountryMark must also train personnel in the new procedure and\nform, conduct a P2P verification for RP025-PTB and for N450-T502 and correct any\nidentified deficiencies. The records documenting the training, P2P verification, and\ncorrections must be presented to the Region Director for review 90 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\nIn regard to Item 3 of the Notice pertaining to CountryMark’s failure to test and verify an\ninternal communication plan for manual safe operation of the pipeline, CountryMark\nmust:\n(1) Within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order, submit to the Region Director for\nreview and approval a finalized procedure(s) and communication plan applicable to\nall jurisdictional pipelines. The procedure(s) must ensure controllers and\nappropriate personnel have adequate information and guidance to perform manual\noperations effectively during a SCADA system failure. This submission must\ndemonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements and ensure the safe and\neffective operation of the pipeline system during SCADA system failures, including\na robust internal communication plan that is regularly tested and validated. The\nplan must address at least the following elements:\ni. Procedures for shutting down the pipeline system, including idling\noperations, during a SCADA system failure;\n\n\n\nD. E. ii. Processes for monitoring pipeline systems to ensure safety under each flow\ncondition;\niii. A process for maintaining pipeline system normal operations to allow the\nmanual delivery and receipt of product;\niv. Methods for conducting manual leak detection and verifying system\nintegrity.\nv. Identification of abnormal operating parameters and corresponding actions.\nvi. Emergency response specific to manual operations;\nvii. Requirements for recording and documenting information during manual\noperation scenarios;\nviii. Personnel and shift requirements necessary to sustain manual pipeline\noperations; and\nix. Annual testing and verification of the internal communication plan, with\nintervals not to exceed 15 months.\n`\n(2) Within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order:\ni. Conduct training for all applicable control room and other operational\npersonnel involved in manual operation.\n(3) Within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order:\ni. Schedule a test to verify the internal communication plan provides an adequate\nmeans for manual operation of the pipeline safely; and\nii. Notify the Region Director of the date and details for the test, to allow\nPHMSA to schedule an observation inspection.\nIn regard to Item 4 of the Notice pertaining to CountyMark failing to test its SCADA\nbackup server, CountryMark must:\n(1) Within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order, develop procedures to establish test\nrequirements for the backup server that includes a form to document elements of the\nSCADA operation, and submit to the Region Director for review and approval a\nfinalized procedure and forms.\n(2) Within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order, CountryMark must:\ni. Complete a test of the backup SCADA server using the approved procedure\nand forms,\nii. iii. Correct any deficiencies identified by the test, and\nSubmit the test record and any corrective actions to the Regional Director for\nreview and approval.\nIn regard to Item 5 of the Notice pertaining to CountryMark failing to establish a\ncontroller training program and review the training program content to identify potential\nimprovements at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months,\nCountryMark must:\n\n\n\nF. (1) (2) (3) Within 45 days of receipt of the Final Order, develop procedures to include the\nroles and responsibilities of the controllers as well as an outline of the controller\ntraining program, and provide them to the Region Director for review and approval.\nThe training program must include:\ni. Stages of training\nii. Periodic assessments, evaluation and feedback for the controller trainee\niii. Requirements for operator qualification that includes knowledge and skill\nassessments.\nWithin 90 days of receipt of the Final Order, present to the Region Director for\nreview and approval:\ni. Training content to be included by each stage of the training program and a\nway to verify the controller completed the training. Training content must\ninclude controllers’ roles and responsibilities as well as requirements found\nin § 195.446(h)(1-6)\nWithin 120 days of receipt of the Final Order, present to the Region Director for\nreview and approval:\ni. A procedure to review the content of the training program once each calendar\nyear as required by § 195.446(h). The procedure must provide the detail of\nhow the content will be evaluated to ensure it is current and relevant to\nsupport training for the controllers to carry out their roles and responsibilities\nin addition to the items identified in § 195.446(h)(1)-(6).\nIt is requested (not mandated) that CountryMark maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto the Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies\nand analyses, and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes\nto pipeline infrastructure.","truncated":false,"body_characters":31451}