{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220136013M","title":"ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-12-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.304, 195.401(b)(1), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(c)(7), 195.402(e)(7), 195.402(e)(9), 195.406(a)(1), 195.410(a)(1), 195.555, 195.569, 195.571.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136013m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136013m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136013m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136013M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENMARK ENERGY, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.304,  195.401(b)(1),  195.402(c)(3),  195.402(c)(7),  195.402(e)(7),  195.402(e)(9),  195.406(a)(1),  195.410(a)(1),  195.555,  195.569,  195.571. The case was opened on 2013-12-10 and is reported as closed as of 2014-10-06. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220136013M_closure letter_10062014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_closure%20letter_10062014.pdf\n\n220136013M_closure letter_10062014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_closure%20letter_10062014_text.pdf\n\n220136013M_notice of amendment_12102013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_notice%20of%20amendment_12102013.pdf\n\n220136013M_notice of amendment_12102013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_notice%20of%20amendment_12102013_text.pdf\n\n220136013M_Operator_Response_01282014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_Operator_Response_01282014.pdf\n\n220136013M_notice of amendment_12102013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 10, 2013\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nCPF 2-2013-6013M\nDear Mr. Rader:\nOn August 12-15, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected the\nEnmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pipelines in\nMadison, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified apparent inadequacies within Enmark’s\nwritten operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures as described below:\n1. §195.304 Test pressure.\nThe test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart must be\nmaintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at least 4 continuous\nhours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating\npressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not visually inspected for leakage\nduring the test, for at least an additional 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to\n110 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure.\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 11 Maximum Allowable Operating\nPressures: Establishment of MAOP/MOP Table 11-1 established one-hour as the pressure\ntest duration for exposed pipe whereas a pressure test of at least 4 continuous hours at a\npressure equal to or greater than 125 percent of the maximum operating pressure (MOP) is\nrequired when the pipeline can be visually inspected for leakage during the test.\n2. §195.401 General requirements.\n... (b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the\nfollowing requirements:\n\n\n\n(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any condition\nthat could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it must correct\nthe condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature\nthat it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not\noperate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 50 Pipeline Maintenance Activities:\nPipeline Repair Procedures and Documentation (page 50-2) required that a pressure\nreduction be made when there is a danger to life or property but the procedures did not\nrequire that the pipeline not be operated if a condition presents an immediate hazard to\npersons or property. The procedures also incorrectly restricted these actions to pipelines\noperating at or above 40% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).\nAdditionally, Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 50 Pipeline Maintenance\nActivities: Pipeline Repair Procedures and Documentation (page 50-1) did not require\nthat any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of the pipeline must be\ncorrected within a reasonable time. That is, while Enmark's O&M procedures required\nthat \"Each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be replaced, repaired or\nremoved from service\" the procedures did not specify that Enmark must correct such a\ncondition within a reasonable time. Moreover, the procedures were limited by only\nrequiring \"...leaks or damage caused by external forces, or detected during routine\ninspection[s]” to be repaired promptly.\nAlso, Enmark's procedures under Permanent Field Repair of Leaks, Imperfections, and\nDamage (pages 50-2 and 50-3) incorrectly limited serious defects and damage only to\npipelines operating at or above 40% SMYS.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n... (c) The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures\nfor the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n... (3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nEnmark’s pipelines transport CO2, yet Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 53\nDrainup and Linefill for Liquid Pipelines did not address the purging and subsequent\nfilling of CO2 pipelines during repairs.\n4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n... (c) The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures\nfor the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n... (7) Starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline system in a manner\ndesigned to assure operation within the limits prescribed by paragraph §195.406,\nconsider the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in transportation, variations in\naltitude along the pipeline, and pressure monitoring and control devices.\nEnmark relies on personnel from its CO2 supplier Denbury Onshore, LLC, (Denbury) and\nits downstream customers (Sandhill and Air Liquide) to open and close valves, and to take\nother actions to start up and shut down its pipelines. Enmark's written O&M procedures\nin Section 13 Maximum Allowable Operating Pressures: MAOP/MOP, however, provided\nonly the general guidance Enmark would follow to start up and shut down its pipelines.\n2\n\n\n\nThe procedures did not describe the actions that personnel from Denbury and the\ndownstream customers would undertake to start up and shut down Enmark’s pipelines nor\ndid the procedures describe Enmark’s own required actions relating to pipeline start up\nand shut down.\n5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n... (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must\ninclude procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition\noccurs;\n... (7) Notifying fire, police, and other appropriate public officials of hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide pipeline emergencies and coordinating with them preplanned and\nactual responses during an emergency, including additional precau7tions necessary\nfor an emergency involving a pipeline system transporting a highly volatile liquid.\nEnmark's written emergency procedures did not require the notification of fire\ndepartments or other emergency response agencies in case of an emergency.\n6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n... (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must\ninclude procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition\noccurs;\n... (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine\nwhether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective\naction where deficiencies are found.\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 6 Incident/Accident Analysis for the post\naccident investigation addressed reviewing the cause of an accident but did not provide for\na post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were\neffective in the emergency and for taking corrective actions where deficiencies are found.\n7. §195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no\noperator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following:\n(1) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance with §195.106.\nHowever, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under §195.5, if one or more\nfactors of the design formula (§195.106) are unknown, one of the following pressures\nis to be used as design pressure:\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 11 Maximum Allowable Operating\nPressures: Establishment of MAOP/MOP did not include the internal design pressure of\nthe pipe when determining the MOP for its pipelines.\n8. §195. 410 Line markers.\n( a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall place and\nmaintain line markers over each buried pipeline in accordance with the following:\n(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each railroad crossing,\nand in sufficient number along the remainder of each buried line so that its location\nis accurately known.\n3\n\n\n\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 49 Pipeline Maintenance Activities: Line\nMarkers for Transmission and Gathering Lines required \"Pipeline markers ... to be\ninstalled over all Company pipelines at each crossing of a public road, railroad, and\nwater crossing.\" However, Enmark's procedures did not require that line markers be\nlocated in sufficient number along the remainder of its buried pipelines so that the location\nof these pipelines is accurately known.\n9. §195. 555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?\nYou must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that\nportion of the corrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3) for\nwhich they are responsible for insuring compliance.\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 75 Corrosion Control: Requirements:\nGeneral required that \"These procedures, including those for the design, installation,\noperation, and maintenance of cathodic protection systems, must be carried out or\ndirected by qualified personnel who have demonstrated their knowledge in pipeline\ncorrosion control methods through applicable training and experience.\" Enmark's\nprocedures, however, did not address how Enmark requires and verifies that supervisors\nmaintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures\nestablished under §195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring compliance.\n10. §195. 569 Do I have to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines?\nWhenever you have knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is exposed, you\nmust examine the exposed portion for evidence of external corrosion if the pipe is\nbare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If you find external corrosion requiring\ncorrective action under §195.585, you must investigate circumferentially and\nlongitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by visual examination, indirect method,\nor both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists\nin the vicinity of the exposed portion.\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 76 Corrosion Control: External Corrosion\nControl did not require Enmark to investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond\nthe exposed portion of a pipeline (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to\ndetermine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of\nthe exposed portion when external corrosion requiring corrective action under §195.585\nwas found on an exposed buried pipeline.\n11. §195. 571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection?\nCathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or more of the\napplicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in\nparagraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nEnmark's written O&M procedures in Section 76 Corrosion Control: External Corrosion\nControl stated in Levels of Cathodic Protection and Monitoring (192.463, 192.465,\n195.571) that \"While the 300 mV shift criteria and the Tafel slope of the E log I curve\ncriteria are not currently being used by the Company, the Company reserves the right to\nreconsider the application of these criteria should the need arise.\" This procedure did not\nmake it clear that these two criteria (i.e. the 300 mV shift criteria and the Tafel slope of\n4\n\n\n\nthe E log I curve) are not acceptable for use on hazardous liquid pipelines regulated under\nPart 195 because they are not included in the criteria in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE\nSP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\nAdditionally, Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 76 Corrosion Control:\nExternal Corrosion Control required that all voltage drops be considered in evaluating the\ncathodic protection (CP) with the protective current applied; however, the procedure did\nnot address how Enmark would specifically consider or determine voltage drop.\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\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 2-2013-6013M 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\n\n220136013M_closure letter_10062014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 6, 2014\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nCPF 2-2013-6013M\nDear Mr. Rader:\nOn August 12-15, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected the\nEnmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pipelines in\nMadison, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code. OPS issued a\nNotice of Amendment (NOA) on December 10, 2013.\nSubsequent to the NOA, Enmark submitted revised procedures to the OPS Southern Region\non January 28, 2014, March 14, 2014, April 28, 2014, and June 17, 2014. We reviewed all\nfour responses as well as the documentation of the revised procedures dated July 30, 2014,\nthat Enmark provided to OPS Southern Region personnel at Enmark’s office on September 23\n- 24, 2014. Based on our review of the actions taken by Enmark to amend its procedures and\nthe supporting documentation, we have determined that Enmark has complied with the terms\nof the NOA and that no further action is necessary with regards to the NOA. This case is now\nclosed.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order\n(CPF 2-2013-6013M) and not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nIf you have any questions on this or any other pipeline safety issue, please contact my office\nat (404) 832-1147.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":17237}