{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220136011","title":"ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-10-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(d), 192.517(a), 192.745(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENMARK ENERGY, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(d),  192.517(a),  192.745(b). The case was opened on 2013-10-25 and is reported as closed as of 2015-03-04. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220136011_Closure Letter_03042015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_Closure%20Letter_03042015.pdf\n\n220136011_Closure Letter_03042015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_Closure%20Letter_03042015_text.pdf\n\n220136011_Final Order_04042014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_Final%20Order_04042014.pdf\n\n220136011_Final Order_04042014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_Final%20Order_04042014_text.pdf\n\n220136011_nopv_pco_10252013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_nopv_pco_10252013.pdf\n\n220136011_nopv_pco_10252013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_nopv_pco_10252013_text.pdf\n\n220136011_Operator Response to Notice_11222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136011/220136011_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11222013.pdf\n\n220136011_Closure Letter_03042015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 4, 2015\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nCPF 2-2013-6011\nDear Mr. Rader:\nThe PHMSA Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) received a letter from\nMr. M. Benjamin Machlis dated March 2, 2015, an attorney with Holland & Hart, which\nrepresents Rentech, Inc. (Rentech). Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) is the operator of record\nand Gulf Coast Synthetic Fuel Center, LLC (Gulf Coast), a subsidiary of Rentech, is the\nowner of the Rentech 6-inch natural gas pipeline and pipeline facilities in Louisiana and\nMississippi, subject to the above referenced Final Order issued on April 4, 2014.\nThe letter included a copy of FERC’s “Order Approving Abandonment” issued on February\n6, 2015, which grants Gulf Coast the authority to abandon the referenced pipeline and\nassociated appurtenances. Moreover, the Order clearly explains that the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers required Gulf Coast to either upgrade or remove the pipeline portions atop three of\nits jurisdictional levees.\nSince abandonment of the pipeline makes the compliance items in the Final Order moot, this\ncase is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved in\nthis case. Notwithstanding the closure of this Final Order, it is must be noted that should Gulf\nCoast not abandon the pipeline and associated appurtenances, the pipeline owner and operator\ncould be subject to further enforcement actions.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220136011_Final Order_04042014_text.pdf\n\nAPRIL 4, 2014\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nRe: CPF No. 2-2013-6011\nDear Mr. Rader:\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 by Enmark Energy, Inc., to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nEnmark Energy, Inc., ) CPF No. 2-2013-6011\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 16, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enmark Energy,\nInc. (Enmark or Respondent), in Louisiana and Mississippi. Enmark operates a 6-inch natural\ngas pipeline (Rentech Pipeline) and related facilities in multiple States.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, OPS Southern Region, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated October 25, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enmark had\ncommitted various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, and ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations.\nEnmark responded to the Notice by letter dated November 22, 2013 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation but requested that the Proposed Compliance Order\n(PCO) be modified due to Respondent’s intent to abandon the pipeline. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Enmark did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n1 See http://www.enmarkenergy.com/Projects html (Current as of March 10, 2014).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the\nrequirements of § 192.463. . . .\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by the company’s external corrosion control\nmonitoring program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enmark had noted inadequate pipe-to-\nsoil readings at its cathodic protection test stations at Mile Posts 15.5 and 17.7 during its annual\nexternal corrosion control testing in 2010, 2011 and 2012, but had failed to take any remedial\naction to correct such deficiencies.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct deficiencies identified by the company’s external corrosion control\nmonitoring program.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.517 Records.\n(a) Each operator shall make, and retain for the useful life of the\npipeline, a record of each test performed under §§192.505 and 192.507.\nThe record must contain at least the following information: . . .\n(5) Pressure recording charts, or other record of pressure readings; . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a) by failing to make, and\nretain for the useful life of the Rentech Pipeline, adequate records for each test performed under\n§§ 192.505 and 192.507. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enmark could not provide pipeline\npressure recording charts or other records of pressure readings for a 1985 hydrostatic pressure\ntest. The 1985 test was memorialized only by a “Memo to File,” which stated only: 1) the test\npressure; 2) the dates of the test; and 3) several other bits of information.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.517(a) by failing to make, and\nretain for the useful life of the Rentech Pipeline, adequate records for each test performed under\n§§ 192.505 and 192.507.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(b), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\n\n\n\n3\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\n(b) Each operator must take prompt remedial action to correct any\nvalve found inoperable, unless the operator designates an alternative\nvalve.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(b) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct any “critical transmission line valve” (i.e., a transmission line that may\nbe necessary during an emergency) found to be inoperable during a regular valve inspection\nrequired under § 192.745(a). Specifically, the Notice alleged that in July 2009, Enmark\ndiscovered four critical valves to be inoperable during a regular inspection but failed to take any\ncorrective action. The same four valves were found to be inoperable in subsequent November\n2009, November 2010, October 2011 and August 2012 Critical Valve Inspections, but the\ncompany failed to take any remedial action following those inspections.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(b) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct multiple critical transmission line valves that were found to be\ninoperable.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Enmark.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465(d), 192.517(a), and 192.745(b), respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601.\nIn its Response, Enmark requested that the PCO be modified to reflect the company’s intention\nto abandon the Rentech Pipeline. However, since Respondent has apparently not yet filed the\nnecessary paperwork with the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission to formally abandon\nthe pipeline, nor specified what (if any) modifications should be made to the PCO, this request is\ndenied.\nAccordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.465(d) (Item 1), Enmark must:\na. Identify all deficiencies on its Rentech Pipeline indicated by external\ncorrosion control monitoring in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; and\nb. Correct any deficiencies that do not meet external corrosion control\ncathodic protection criteria per § 192.463.\n\n\n\n4\n2. 3. 4. 5. With respect to the violation of § 192.517(a) (Item 2), Enmark must:\na. Locate the original pressure recording charts or other original records of\npressure readings for the February 13-14, 1985 hydrostatic pressure test of\nthe Rentech Pipeline; or\nb. Complete a hydrostatic pressure test of the Rentech Pipeline.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.745(b) (Item 3), Enmark must:\na. Repair or replace all four faulty critical transmission valves identified in\nthe 2009 to 2012 Critical Valve Inspection Reports; or\nb. Designate alternative valves, as allowed under §192.745(b).\nEnmark must notify the Director, OPS Southern Region, within 150 days\nfollowing the date of issuance of the Final Order that Compliance Order Items 1,\n2, and 3 have been completed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enmark maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order, and submit\nthe total to Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, OPS Southern Region. It is requested that\nthese costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total costs\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\nThe Director, OPS Southern Region, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the\nrequired items upon a written request: 1) timely submitted by the Respondent; and 2)\ndemonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the\nadministrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each\nday the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13203}