{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220136012M","title":"ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-12-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(d)(3), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(4), 195.505, 195.505(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136012m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136012m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136012m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136012M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENMARK ENERGY, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(d)(3),  195.452(h)(2),  195.452(h)(4),  195.505,  195.505(c). The case was opened on 2013-12-06 and is reported as closed as of 2014-04-08. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220136012M_closure letter_04082014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136012M/220136012M_closure%20letter_04082014.pdf\n\n220136012M_closure letter_04082014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136012M/220136012M_closure%20letter_04082014_text.pdf\n\n220136012M_notice of amendment_12062013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136012M/220136012M_notice%20of%20amendment_12062013.pdf\n\n220136012M_notice of amendment_12062013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136012M/220136012M_notice%20of%20amendment_12062013_text.pdf\n\n220136012M_Operator Response to Notice_01302014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136012M/220136012M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01302014.pdf\n\n220136012M_closure letter_04082014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 8, 2014\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nCPF 2-2013-6012M\nDear Mr. Rader:\nOn August 12-15, and August 27, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)\ninspected the Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2)\npipelines in Madison, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code. As a\nresult of the inspection, OPS issued a Notice of Amendment (NOA) on December 6, 2013.\nThe OPS Southern Region received, reviewed, and responded to Enmark’s January 30, 2014,\nsubmittal of revised procedures. That is, in a letter dated March 6, 2014, the OPS Southern\nRegion explained the deficiencies in the revised procedures and asked you to resubmit.\nThe OPS Southern Region received and reviewed Enmark’s second written response to the\nNOA dated March 28, 2014, and find Enmark’s amended procedures adequate. This letter is\nto inform you that Enmark has complied with the terms of the NOA and that no further action\nis necessary with regards to the NOA. This case is now closed.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the NOA (CPF 2-2013-6012M) and not to any\nother PHMSA pending cases. Also be advised that nothing herein states or implies that the\nEnmark Integrity Management (IM) Program and Operator Qualification (OQ) Program meet\nthe requirements of the federal pipeline safety regulations or that the IM and OQ Programs are\napproved. The pipeline system and the IM and OQ Programs remain subject to inspection by\nPHMSA.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220136012M_notice of amendment_12062013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 6, 2013\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nCPF 2-2013-6012M\nDear Mr. Rader:\nOn August 12-15, and August 27, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)\ninspected the Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2)\npipelines in Madison, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified apparent inadequacies within Enmark’s\nIntegrity Management Program (IMP) and its Operator Qualification Program (OQP) as\ndescribed below:\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n... (d) When must operators complete baseline assessments? Operators must complete\nbaseline assessments as follows:\n... (3) Newly-identified areas.\n(i) When information is available from the information analysis (see paragraph (g) of\nthis section), or from Census Bureau maps, that the population density around a\npipeline segment has changed so as to fall within the definition in §195.450 of a high\npopulation area or other populated area, the operator must incorporate the area into\nits baseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year from the\ndate the area is identified. An operator must complete the baseline assessment of any\nline pipe that could affect the newly-identified high consequence area within five\nyears from the date the area is identified.\nEnmark's Integrity Management Program (IMP) procedures did not address the use of all\nthe information that should be available from the Information Analysis required by the\nIMP regulations in §195.452(g). This information would include, but not be limited to,\n\n\n\ndevelopment or planned development along the pipeline, as well as data gathered through\nassessments, inspections, tests, surveillance, patrols, and other maintenance activities.\nThis information is used to help identify new high population areas or other populated\nareas that could be newly-identified high consequence areas (HCAs).\nThat is, while Enmark’s IMP Section 8.2 Integration of Inspection Data addressed\nincorporating information from changes to the pipeline system itself, it did not address\ninformation concerning changes in the population density around the pipeline. Similarly,\nIMP Sections 4.0 Identifying Pipeline Segments with Potential HCA Impact and 8.3\nProcedure for Determination of Integrity Assessment Intervals addressed the use of data\nfrom the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) to determine HCAs, but did not\naddress the use of information on population density changes identified through the\nInformation Analysis required by §195.452(g).\n2. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n... (d) When must operators complete baseline assessments? Operators must complete\nbaseline assessments as follows:\n... (3) Newly-identified areas.\n(i) When information is available from the information analysis (see paragraph (g) of\nthis section), or from Census Bureau maps, that the population density around a\npipeline segment has changed so as to fall within the definition in §195.450 of a high\npopulation area or other populated area, the operator must incorporate the area into\nits baseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year from the\ndate the area is identified. An operator must complete the baseline assessment of any\nline pipe that could affect the newly-identified high consequence area within five\nyears from the date the area is identified.\n(ii) An operator must incorporate a new unusually sensitive area into its baseline\nassessment plan within one year from the date the area is identified. An operator\nmust complete the baseline assessment of any line pipe that could affect the newly-\nidentified high consequence area within five years from the date the area is\nidentified.\nWhile Enmark's IMP Section 6.9 Summary / Recommended Baseline Assessment required\nnewly identified HCAs to be incorporated into its IMP within one year of their discovery,\nit incorrectly required the baseline assessment for these newly identified HCAs to be\ncompleted within five years of their being incorporated into the IMP. The baseline\nassessment of a newly identified HCA must be completed within five years from the date\nthe HCA is identified, not within five years after being incorporated into the Enmark IMP.\n3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n... (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n... (2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an operator has\nadequate information about the condition to determine that the condition presents a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An operator must promptly, but no\nlater than 180 days after an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about\na condition to make that determination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the\n180-day period is impracticable.\n2\n\n\n\nEnmark's IMP Section 7.0 Pipeline Repair Strategy did not fully address all the relevant\ninformation that may lead to the “discovery of condition” requiring remediation. Sections\n7.1 Introduction and 7.5 Other Conditions That Warrant Evaluation and/or Repair\ndiscuss evaluating baseline and subsequent integrity assessment results and the repair of\nconditions warranting repairs; however, the procedures did not address other information\nEnmark should be obtaining during maintenance activities and pipeline operations to\ndetermine if a condition requiring remediation exists.\n4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n... (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n... (4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation.\n(i) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule\nmust provide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator must\ntemporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until the operator\ncompletes the repair of these conditions. An operator must calculate the temporary\nreduction in operating pressure using the formula in Section 451.6.2.2 (b) of\nANSI/ASME B31.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). An operator must treat\nthe following conditions as immediate repair conditions:\nEnmark's IMP Section 7.2 Immediate Repair Conditions required a temporary reduction in\noperating pressure of its pipelines if an Immediate Repair Condition was identified. The\nprocedure stated, \"...the pipeline operating pressure will be reduced in accordance with\nASME B31.4 (or other basis for determining safe operating pressure) until the repair(s)\nare completed.\" However, Enmark's IMP and O&M procedures did not address how a\npressure reduction for corrosion anomalies would actually be determined in accordance\nwith ASME B31.4, nor how a reduced operating pressure would be determined for other\nImmediate Repair Conditions, such as certain dents.\nAdditionally, Enmark's IMP did not address how Enmark would implement a temporary\noperating pressure reduction. Enmark did not have pressure control devices on its\npipeline so pressure control for Enmark's pipelines is provided by Denbury. But, Enmark\ndid not have procedures for coordinating and implementing a pressure reduction on its\npipeline with Denbury.\n5. §195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified;\nThe Enmark written Operator Qualification Program (OQP) did not provide adequate\nprocedures on how Enmark would 1) evaluate an outside entity’s OQP to assure OQ\ncovered tasks have been identified and 2) ensure that the individuals performing covered\ntasks that could affect Enmark’s Sandhill and Air Liquide pipelines are properly OQ\nqualified.\n3\n\n\n\nEnmark’s OQP Section 13 - Mutual Assistance indicated that a process was developed to\nensure the consistent review of a third-party pipeline operator’s or operating subsidiary’s\nOQP in the event that the third-party might be called upon to perform an OQ covered task.\nHowever, the process was not explained in sufficient detail to understand what is required.\nFurther, Section 13 specifically stated it is “applicable to those entities that are\n(they/themselves) subject to the OQ rule because they operate regulated (Part 195/192)\nassets.” Individuals working for Enmark’s customers, Sandhill and Air Liquide, perform\ncovered tasks that affect the operation of Enmark’s pipelines and neither company is\nregulated under Part 195 or Part 192.\n6. §195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n... (c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a\ncovered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\nThe Enmark OQP did not adequately address the process for allowing individuals that are\nnot qualified to perform an OQ covered task under the direction and observation of a\nqualified individual.\nEnmark’s OQP Section 11- Non-Qualified Individuals indicated that it is the responsibility\nof the qualified person directing and observing an individual to limit the number of\nnon-qualified individuals performing a given covered task to the span of control ratio\nindicated in the covered task list; yet, the covered task list did not list any span of control\nratios. Additionally, Section 12 - Contractors stated “The contractor must provide span of\ncontrol acceptable to Enmark Energy while Covered Tasks are performed” but the OQP\ndid not indicate or explain what is acceptable to Enmark.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. §190.237. Enclosed\nas part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the\ninadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your amended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice.\nThis period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies\n4\n\n\n\nidentified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action\nwill be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enmark Energy, Inc. maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures) and submit the total to Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this\nmatter, please refer to CPF 2-2013-6012M and, for each document you submit, please\nprovide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":15300}