{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220146002","title":"ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-01-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.406(b), 195.410, 195.420(a), 195.452(i)(3), 195.452(l), 195.505, 195.505(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220146002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220146002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220146002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220146002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENMARK ENERGY, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.406(b),  195.410,  195.420(a),  195.452(i)(3),  195.452(l),  195.505,  195.505(c). The case was opened on 2014-01-14 and is reported as closed as of 2015-01-12. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220146002_closure letter_01122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_closure%20letter_01122015.pdf\n\n220146002_closure letter_01122015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_closure%20letter_01122015_text.pdf\n\n220146002_Final Order_05022014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_Final%20Order_05022014.pdf\n\n220146002_Final Order_05022014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_Final%20Order_05022014_text.pdf\n\n220146002_nopv_pco_01142014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_nopv_pco_01142014.pdf\n\n220146002_nopv_pco_01142014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_nopv_pco_01142014_text.pdf\n\n220146002_Operator Response to Notice_02112014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220146002/220146002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02112014.pdf\n\n220146002_Final Order_05022014_text.pdf\n\nMAY 2, 2014\nMr. Connell Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nRe: CPF No. 2-2014-6002\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. 2-2014-6002\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 12-15 and 27, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark or\nRespondent) Sandhill and Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pipelines in Madison, Mississippi.\nThe Sandhill pipeline is six inches in diameter and 1.4 miles in length, and the Air Liquide\npipeline is composed of six- and eight-inch diameter pipe and is eight miles in length. Both\npipelines are fed upstream by Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury) and deliver CO2 to the Sandhill\nand Air Liquide plants.1 Enmark operates and maintains over one hundred miles of high-\npressure natural gas and CO2 lines in the State of Mississippi.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 14, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enmark had committed\nvarious violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action, but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.\nEnmark responded to the Notice by letter dated February 11, 2014 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and expressed its intent to complete the measures in the\nproposed compliance order. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\n1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (January 14, 2014) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 See, http://enmarkenergy.com/About.html, last accessed March 3, 2014.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Enmark did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) …\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges\nor other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section.\nEach operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to\ncontrol the pressure within this limit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by failing to provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure in its pipelines from\nexceeding 110 percent of the established maximum operating pressure (MOP) during surges or\nother variations from normal operations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enmark did not\ncontrol the valves and equipment needed to ensure that the Sandhill and Air Liquide lines did not\nexceed the 110 percent as set forth in the regulation above. During the inspection, Enmark\nacknowledged that the pressure of the pipelines was controlled by the upstream operator,\nDenbury. Enmark was unable to demonstrate that appropriate procedures, personnel\nqualifications, and recordkeeping had been undertaken by Denbury on behalf of Enmark that\nsatisfied Enmark’s responsibilities concerning the use of adequate controls and protective\nequipment necessary to control the pipeline pressures on its Sandhill and Air Liquide lines.\n3\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. § 195.406(b) by failing to provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure of the Sandhill and Air\nLiquide pipelines from exceeding 110 percent of the operating pressure.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for safe\noperation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each\nvalve necessary to operate its pipelines. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enmark failed to\nprovide any information showing that it had maintained the block valves at the upstream and\ndownstream ends of the Sandhill or Air Liquide pipelines necessary for their safe operation.\nWhile the valves necessary to maintain safe operation of its pipelines may be controlled by other\nentities, Enmark was again unable to provide any documentation that those entities were in fact\ntaking those necessary steps to maintain the valves or had agreed to maintain those valves, in\naccordance with the regulation. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\n3 There was not even a written agreement between Denbury and Enmark concerning any division of responsibilities.\n\n\n\n3\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each valve necessary for the safe operation of its\nSandhill and Air Liquide pipeline systems.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area?\n(1) …\n(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on\nits pipeline system. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak\ndetection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence\narea. An operator’s evaluation must, at least, consider the following\nfactors – length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the\npipeline’s proximity to the high consequence area, the swiftness of leak\ndetection, location of nearest response personnel, leak history, and risk\nassessment results.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3) by failing to have a\nmeans to detect leaks on its Air Liquide pipeline system to protect high consequence areas\n(HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that although Enmark’s written integrity management\nprogram procedures indicate that it has a continuously operating condition monitoring program\nin place, it relied on Denbury to monitor the Air Liquide pipeline. When asked to demonstrate\nhow Enmark could know whether this monitoring was being carried out by Denbury in a manner\nthat met Enmark’s regulatory obligations, Respondent was unable to produce any records of\noversight by Enmark or even copies of written agreements between Enmark and Denbury.\nTherefore, Enmark was unable to show that it was properly monitoring the Air Liquide pipeline\nsystem. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3) by failing\nto have a means to detect leaks on its Air Liquide pipeline system to protect HCAs, or proof that\nit had an agreement with others to actively monitor its Air Liquide pipeline, in accordance with\nthe regulations.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(l) An operator must maintain for review during an inspection:\n(i) …\n(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any\nmodifications, justifications, variances, deviations and determinations\nmade, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the\nintegrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l) by failing to maintain\nrecords required to supports its Integrity Management Program (IMP) decisions and analyses.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that while Enmark’s IMP Section 4 indicated that Enmark\nadopted the previous owner’s dispersion model results, those results were not available for\nreview during PHMSA’s inspection. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l) by failing to maintain records required to supports its Integrity\nManagement Program (IMP) decisions and analyses.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified;\n(c) …\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to identify certain\nOperator Qualification (OQ) covered tasks on its pipelines and did not ensure through evaluation\nthat individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nEnmark had not determined what covered tasks performed by Denbury would affect the\noperation and safe shutdown of its Sandhill and Air Liquide pipelines. Additionally, Enmark had\nnot, through evaluation, ensured that personnel performing covered tasks were qualified in\naccordance with the requirements of the Enmark OQ program. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to identify certain OQ covered tasks and did\nnot ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(c), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) …\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to\nperform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is\nqualified;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(c) by failing to include\nsufficient provisions in its written OQ program for allowing individuals that were not qualified to\nperform OQ covered tasks. Specifically, the Notice alleged that despite Enmark’s OQP Section\n11 and 12 which discuss who is responsible for limiting the number of non-qualified individuals\n\n\n\n5\nfrom performing OQ tasks, the program failed to provide any span of control ratios or indicate\nwhat was or was not acceptable to Enmark. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(c) by not adequately addressing the process of allowing individuals\nthat were not qualified to perform an OQ for covered tasks.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. §195. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(b) (Item 1), Respondent must either provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressures in its Sandhill and Air\nLiquide pipelines such that it will not exceed 110 percent of the pressure limit established\nunder §195.406(a) during surges or other variations from normal operations; or\nIf Enmark continues to rely on Denbury, Air Liquide, and/or Sandhill to provide controls\nand protective equipment to control the pressure in its pipelines, then Enmark must:\ni. Develop and implement a written formal agreement between Enmark and Denbury\nconcerning the adequate control and protective equipment necessary to control the pressure\nin its Air Liquide and Sandhill pipelines such that it will not exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under §195.406 during stages or variations from normal\noperations.\nii. Develop and implement a written formal agreement between Enmark and Denbury\nconcerning the adequate control and protective equipment necessary to control the pressure\nin the Air Liquide pipeline such that it will not exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure\nlimit established under §195.406 during surges or other variations from normal operations.\niii. Develop and implement a written formal agreement between Enmark and Sandhill\nconcerning the adequate control and protective equipment necessary to control the pressure\nin the Sandhill pipeline such that it will not exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure\nlimit established under §195.406 during surges or other variations from normal operations.\niv. Modify its written operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures, as necessary, to\nensure the agreements in Items 1i, 1ii, and 1iii above, are properly developed and\nimplemented.\nv. Complete the actions required in Item 5 to ensure that any Denbury, Air Liquide,\nand/or Sandhill personnel performing covered tasks on or affecting Enmark’s pipelines are\nproperly qualified.\n\n\n\n6\n2. 3. 4. vi. Collect and maintain records, as required, to demonstrate compliance with the\nmodified O&M procedures and written agreement.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.420(a) (Item 3), Respondent must either provide\nadequate valves to allow safe operation of its Sandhill and Air Liquide pipelines and\nmaintain each valve in good working order at all times; or\nIf Enmark continues to rely on Denbury, Air Liquide, and/or Sandhill to provide and\nmaintain valves necessary for the safe operation of its pipelines then Enmark must:\ni. Develop and implement a written agreement between Enmark and Denbury\nconcerning the maintenance on the Denbury pipeline system of valves that are required to\nblock-in the upstream end of Enmark’s Sandhill pipeline.\nii. Develop and implement a written agreement between Enmark and Sandhill\nconcerning the maintenance of valve(s) at the Sandhill facility that are required to block-in\nthe downstream end of Enmark’s Sandhill pipeline.\niii. Develop and implement a written agreement between Enmark and Air Liquide\nconcerning the maintenance of valve(s) at the Air Liquide facility that are required to block-\nin the downstream end of Enmark’s Air Liquide pipeline.\niv. Modify its written O&M procedures, and its Operator Qualification Program (OQP),\nas necessary, to ensure the agreements in Items 2i, 2ii, 2iii above are properly developed and\nimplemented.\nv. Complete the actions required in Item 5 to ensure that any Denbury, Air Liquide,\nand/or Sandhill personnel performing covered tasks on or affecting Enmark’s pipelines are\nproperly qualified.\nvi. Collect and maintain, as required, records to demonstrate compliance with the\nmodified O&M procedures and written agreement.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.452(i)(3) (Item 4), Respondent must either provide a\nmeans to continuously monitor and detect leaks on its Air Liquide pipeline system; or\nIf Enmark continues to rely on Denbury, Air Liquide, and/or Sandhill to provide and\nmaintain valves necessary for the safe operation of its pipelines then Enmark must:\ni. Develop and implement a written agreement between Enmark and Denbury, and/or\nEnmark and Air Liquide to provide a means to continuously monitor and detect leaks on the\nAir Liquide pipeline;\nii. Modify its written O&M procedures, and OQP, as necessary, to ensure the\nagreement(s) in Item 3a above is/are properly developed and implemented; and\niii. Collect and maintain, as required, records to demonstrate compliance with the\nmodified O&M procedures, OQP and the written agreement.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.452(l) (Item 5), Respondent must maintain for review\nduring an inspection records required to support its IMP; Enmark must also create or gather\nrecords to fully support its IMP and make such records available to PHMSA inspectors at the\ntime of inspection.\n\n\n\n7\n5. 6. 7. 8. With respect to the violation of § 195.505 (Item 6), Respondent must properly and\nthoroughly identify all OQ covered tasks on its Sandhill and Air Liquide pipelines;\ni. Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing OQ covered tasks on its\nSandhill and Air Liquide pipelines are qualified under its OQP; and\nii. Collect and maintain, as required, records to demonstrate compliance with its OQP\nand to demonstrate compliance with this Order.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.505(c) (Item 7), Respondent must specify in its OQP\nwhat is an acceptable span of control while covered tasks are being performed.\nEnmark must complete the above Items within the following time requirements:\ni. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order Enmark must complete the requirements\nof Item 4 and 6 above and make available to PHMSA inspection records and documentation\nshowing the completion of Item 4.\nii. Within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order, Enmark must provide written\ndocumentation confirming the completion of Items 4 and 6 above to the Director, Officer of\nPipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region.\niii. Within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order, Enmark must complete the requirements\nof Items 1, 3, and 5 above.\niv. Within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order, Enmark must provide written\nnotification to the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region, confirming\nthe completion of Item 1, 3, and 5 above and make available for PHMSA inspection all\nrecords and documentation showing the completion of Items 1, 3 and 5.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enmark Energy, Inc. maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nMr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total costs\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analysis, and 2) total\ncost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2 the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n\n\n\n8\n49 C.F.R. § 195.410 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to place and\nmaintain line markers along the buried Sandhill pipeline in sufficient number so\nthat its location was accurately known.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\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\n\n220146002_closure letter_01122015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 12, 2015\nMr. Connell R. Rader\nPresident\nEnmark Energy, Inc.\n104 First Choice Drive, Suite A\nMadison, MS 39110\nCPF 2-2014-6002\nDear Mr. Rader:\nOn May 2, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Enmark Energy, Inc. (Enmark) a Final Order with an\nattached Compliance Order (CO) in the above-referenced case. The CO required Enmark to\nundertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations.\nOn July 31 and August 29, 2014, Enmark provided written notifications and documentation\nthat it had completed CO Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. OPS representatives reviewed this\ndocumentation at Enmark’s office on September 24, 2014. The OPS Southern Region also\ngranted Enmark two extensions to complete CO Item 3. Enmark provided written notification\nconfirming the completion of CO Item 3 on December 23, 2014.\nBased on our review of the actions taken by Enmark and the supporting documentation we\nhave determined that Enmark has complied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order.\nThis case is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved\nin this case.\nPlease refer to CPF 2-2014-6002 in any correspondence referring to this matter. If you have\nany questions on any other pipeline safety issue, please contact my office at (404) 832-1147.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":24103}