# ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Amendment

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

220136013M_closure letter_10062014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_closure%20letter_10062014.pdf

220136013M_closure letter_10062014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_closure%20letter_10062014_text.pdf

220136013M_notice of amendment_12102013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_notice%20of%20amendment_12102013.pdf

220136013M_notice of amendment_12102013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_notice%20of%20amendment_12102013_text.pdf

220136013M_Operator_Response_01282014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136013M/220136013M_Operator_Response_01282014.pdf

220136013M_notice of amendment_12102013_text.pdf

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
December 10, 2013
Mr. Connell R. Rader
President
Enmark Energy, Inc.
104 First Choice Drive, Suite A
Madison, MS 39110
CPF 2-2013-6013M
Dear Mr. Rader:
On August 12-15, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected the
Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pipelines in
Madison, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.
On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified apparent inadequacies within Enmark’s
written operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures as described below:
1. §195.304 Test pressure.
The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart must be
maintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at least 4 continuous
hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of the maximum operating
pressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not visually inspected for leakage
during the test, for at least an additional 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to
110 percent, or more, of the maximum operating pressure.
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 11 Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressures: Establishment of MAOP/MOP Table 11-1 established one-hour as the pressure
test duration for exposed pipe whereas a pressure test of at least 4 continuous hours at a
pressure equal to or greater than 125 percent of the maximum operating pressure (MOP) is
required when the pipeline can be visually inspected for leakage during the test.
2. §195.401 General requirements.
... (b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the
following requirements:



(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any condition
that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it must correct
the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature
that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not
operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe condition.
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 50 Pipeline Maintenance Activities:
Pipeline Repair Procedures and Documentation (page 50-2) required that a pressure
reduction be made when there is a danger to life or property but the procedures did not
require that the pipeline not be operated if a condition presents an immediate hazard to
persons or property. The procedures also incorrectly restricted these actions to pipelines
operating at or above 40% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).
Additionally, Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 50 Pipeline Maintenance
Activities: Pipeline Repair Procedures and Documentation (page 50-1) did not require
that any condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of the pipeline must be
corrected within a reasonable time. That is, while Enmark's O&M procedures required
that "Each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be replaced, repaired or
removed from service" the procedures did not specify that Enmark must correct such a
condition within a reasonable time. Moreover, the procedures were limited by only
requiring "...leaks or damage caused by external forces, or detected during routine
inspection[s]” to be repaired promptly.
Also, Enmark's procedures under Permanent Field Repair of Leaks, Imperfections, and
Damage (pages 50-2 and 50-3) incorrectly limited serious defects and damage only to
pipelines operating at or above 40% SMYS.
3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
... (c) The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures
for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:
... (3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
Enmark’s pipelines transport CO2, yet Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 53
Drainup and Linefill for Liquid Pipelines did not address the purging and subsequent
filling of CO2 pipelines during repairs.
4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
... (c) The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures
for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:
... (7) Starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline system in a manner
designed to assure operation within the limits prescribed by paragraph §195.406,
consider the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in transportation, variations in
altitude along the pipeline, and pressure monitoring and control devices.
Enmark relies on personnel from its CO2 supplier Denbury Onshore, LLC, (Denbury) and
its downstream customers (Sandhill and Air Liquide) to open and close valves, and to take
other actions to start up and shut down its pipelines. Enmark's written O&M procedures
in Section 13 Maximum Allowable Operating Pressures: MAOP/MOP, however, provided
only the general guidance Enmark would follow to start up and shut down its pipelines.
2



The procedures did not describe the actions that personnel from Denbury and the
downstream customers would undertake to start up and shut down Enmark’s pipelines nor
did the procedures describe Enmark’s own required actions relating to pipeline start up
and shut down.
5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
... (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must
include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition
occurs;
... (7) Notifying fire, police, and other appropriate public officials of hazardous liquid
or carbon dioxide pipeline emergencies and coordinating with them preplanned and
actual responses during an emergency, including additional precau7tions necessary
for an emergency involving a pipeline system transporting a highly volatile liquid.
Enmark's written emergency procedures did not require the notification of fire
departments or other emergency response agencies in case of an emergency.
6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
... (e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must
include procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition
occurs;
... (9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine
whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective
action where deficiencies are found.
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 6 Incident/Accident Analysis for the post
accident investigation addressed reviewing the cause of an accident but did not provide for
a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were
effective in the emergency and for taking corrective actions where deficiencies are found.
7. §195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no
operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following:
(1) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance with §195.106.
However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under §195.5, if one or more
factors of the design formula (§195.106) are unknown, one of the following pressures
is to be used as design pressure:
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 11 Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressures: Establishment of MAOP/MOP did not include the internal design pressure of
the pipe when determining the MOP for its pipelines.
8. §195. 410 Line markers.
( a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall place and
maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in accordance with the following:
(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each railroad crossing,
and in sufficient number along the remainder of each buried line so that its location
is accurately known.
3



Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 49 Pipeline Maintenance Activities: Line
Markers for Transmission and Gathering Lines required "Pipeline markers ... to be
installed over all Company pipelines at each crossing of a public road, railroad, and
water crossing." However, Enmark's procedures did not require that line markers be
located in sufficient number along the remainder of its buried pipelines so that the location
of these pipelines is accurately known.
9. §195. 555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?
You must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that
portion of the corrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3) for
which they are responsible for insuring compliance.
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 75 Corrosion Control: Requirements:
General required that "These procedures, including those for the design, installation,
operation, and maintenance of cathodic protection systems, must be carried out or
directed by qualified personnel who have demonstrated their knowledge in pipeline
corrosion control methods through applicable training and experience." Enmark's
procedures, however, did not address how Enmark requires and verifies that supervisors
maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures
established under §195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring compliance.
10. §195. 569 Do I have to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines?
Whenever you have knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is exposed, you
must examine the exposed portion for evidence of external corrosion if the pipe is
bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If you find external corrosion requiring
corrective action under §195.585, you must investigate circumferentially and
longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by visual examination, indirect method,
or both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists
in the vicinity of the exposed portion.
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 76 Corrosion Control: External Corrosion
Control did not require Enmark to investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond
the exposed portion of a pipeline (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to
determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of
the exposed portion when external corrosion requiring corrective action under §195.585
was found on an exposed buried pipeline.
11. §195. 571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic
protection?
Cathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or more of the
applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in
paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 76 Corrosion Control: External Corrosion
Control stated in Levels of Cathodic Protection and Monitoring (192.463, 192.465,
195.571) that "While the 300 mV shift criteria and the Tafel slope of the E log I curve
criteria are not currently being used by the Company, the Company reserves the right to
reconsider the application of these criteria should the need arise." This procedure did not
make it clear that these two criteria (i.e. the 300 mV shift criteria and the Tafel slope of
4



the E log I curve) are not acceptable for use on hazardous liquid pipelines regulated under
Part 195 because they are not included in the criteria in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE
SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).
Additionally, Enmark's written O&M procedures in Section 76 Corrosion Control:
External Corrosion Control required that all voltage drops be considered in evaluating the
cathodic protection (CP) with the protective current applied; however, the procedure did
not address how Enmark would specifically consider or determine voltage drop.
Response to this Notice
This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. §190.237. Enclosed
as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies
for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document
you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to
find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
If, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in
this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the
inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that
you submit your amended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice.
This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies
identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action
will be closed.
It is requested (not mandated) that Enmark Energy, Inc. maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision
of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this
matter, please refer to CPF 2-2013-6013M and, for each document you submit, please
provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Lemoi
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
5

220136013M_closure letter_10062014_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
October 6, 2014
Mr. Connell R. Rader
President
Enmark Energy, Inc.
104 First Choice Drive, Suite A
Madison, MS 39110
CPF 2-2013-6013M
Dear Mr. Rader:
On August 12-15, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspected the
Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pipelines in
Madison, Mississippi, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code. OPS issued a
Notice of Amendment (NOA) on December 10, 2013.
Subsequent to the NOA, Enmark submitted revised procedures to the OPS Southern Region
on January 28, 2014, March 14, 2014, April 28, 2014, and June 17, 2014. We reviewed all
four responses as well as the documentation of the revised procedures dated July 30, 2014,
that Enmark provided to OPS Southern Region personnel at Enmark’s office on September 23
- 24, 2014. Based on our review of the actions taken by Enmark to amend its procedures and
the supporting documentation, we have determined that Enmark has complied with the terms
of the NOA and that no further action is necessary with regards to the NOA. This case is now
closed.
Please be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order
(CPF 2-2013-6013M) and not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.
If you have any questions on this or any other pipeline safety issue, please contact my office
at (404) 832-1147.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Lemoi
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 17237