{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120125001","title":"ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-02-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(3), 195.406(b), 195.412(a), 195.54(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120125001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(c)(3),  195.406(b),  195.412(a),  195.54(b). The case was opened on 2012-02-02 and is reported as closed as of 2013-04-05. Proposed civil penalty: $67,400. Assessed civil penalty: $67,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120125001_Closure Letter_04052013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Closure%20Letter_04052013.pdf\n\n120125001_Closure Letter_04052013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Closure%20Letter_04052013_text.pdf\n\n120125001_Final Order_10092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Final%20Order_10092012.pdf\n\n120125001_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Final%20Order_10092012_text.pdf\n\n120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012.pdf\n\n120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012_text.pdf\n\n120125001_Closure Letter_04052013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nApril 05, 2013\nTerry Hulburt\nSr. Vice President, Operations\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 1-2012-5001\nDear Mr. Hulburt:\nOn October 9, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), issued to Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) a Final Order in the\nabove-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.\nWe received confirmation of payment of the civil penalty on November 6, 2012. Subsequently, we\nreceived a letter dated November 28, 2012, from Kevin Bodenhamer, Senior Vice President, EHS&T at\nEnterprise, wherein he summarized the actions taken to comply with this Order, along with documents\nthat were enclosed with it. Based on our review of those documents that he provided, injunction with\npayment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that Enterprise has complied with the terms of this\nOrder.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nBryon E. Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: NYSDPS\n\n120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nFebruary 2, 2012\nMr. Terry L. Hurlburt\nSenior Vice President-Operations\nEnterprise Products Operating LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002-5227\nCPF 1-2012-5001\nDear Mr. Hurlburt:\nAs the result of the incident that occurred on Enterprise’s 8-inch Line P-41, along Keyserkill\nRoad in Gilboa, New York (Schoharie County), on August 27, 2010, an inspector from the New\nYork State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), acting as agents for the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code, conducted inspections during the remediation activities involving line P41 in New\nYork.\nAs a result of these inspections, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-5001\n1. §195.412(a) Inspection of rights of way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times\neach calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline\nright-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other\nappropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nEnterprise did not adequately inspect the surface conditions, while utilizing fixed wing aircraft,\non or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) on line P41.\nEnterprise was unable to adequately inspect the pipeline right-of-way on line P41 as they failed\nto maintain the growth of vegetation on the P41 right-of-way, including the tree canopy over the\nright-of-way. The overgrown right-of-way did not allow for proper aerial inspection of the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to the right-of-way as outlined in 49 CFR Part 195. At the time\nof the inspection, Enterprise indicated that they were using aerial patrol as the only method to\nmeet the requirements of §195.412(a). However, Enterprise had failed to maintain its right-of-\nway sufficiently to allow for the adequate inspection of the surface conditions by aerial patrolling\nalone.\nInadequate right-of-way inspections were conducted at the following areas where overgrown\nconditions were identified:\n• Dig sites 12 and 13 (dig sites related to CAO 120105008H);\n• Route 30 to Dave Brown Mountain;\n• Right of way immediately downstream of Valve 102;\n• Near West Kill Stream Crossing;\n• Dave Brown Mountain to Valve 102; and\n• Downstream of Keyserkill Road.\n2. §195.54 Accident reports.\n(b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information reported or\nadditions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall file a supplemental\nreport within 30 days.\nEnterprise failed to submit a supplemental report to PHMSA within 30 days of receiving\nadditional information related to an accident that occurred on August 27, 2010 in Schoharie\nCounty, New York.\nOn November 12, 2010, Enterprise received a laboratory analysis report titled “Investigation of a\nleak on 8 inch P41 pipeline at MP 133.87; W. Greg Morris (Nov 12, 2010),\n”Keiffner and\nAssociates. This report identified the cause of the accident to be due to a circumferential leak\nthat originated at a circumferentially –oriented stress corrosion crack (SCC) adjacent to the toe of\na girth weld on the upstream pipe joint. On March 17, 2011, and again on May 9, 2011, PHMSA\n120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-5001\nrepresentative, Blaine Keener, contacted Enterprise via email requesting that a supplemental\nreport be submitted identifying the cause of the 8/27/2010 incident in Schoharie County,\nNew York. As of May 11, 2011, Enterprise had still not provided the supplemental report update\nas requested by PHMSA and as required by Section 195.54(b) of the code.\n3. §195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other\nvariations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure\nlimit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator must provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure within this limit.\nEnterprise permitted the pressure on the P41 pipeline to exceed 110 percent of the operating\npressure limit established for this pipeline.\nFollowing the accident that occurred on 8/27/2010, Enterprise established a procedure for the\nevacuation of propane in the P41 line from Jefferson Station to Selkirk Station. In that procedure\nEnterprise established a temporary maximum pressure of 600 psig at Selkirk Station. Including\nthe allowance for 110 percent, this calculates to 660 psig.\nDuring the propane evacuation process on 10/05/2010, Enterprise exceeded the allowance for the\nestablished temporary maximum pressure by 15 psig when the pressure peaked at 675 psig.\n4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities\nand handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\nEnterprise failed to follow the applicable ENTERPRISE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION\nSPEC LP-9.1, which requires that line-up clamps not be removed prior to completing 50% of the\nroot bead. During the replacement of Valve MOV97A, the inspector witnessed a weld in which\nthe line-up clamp was removed by one of the welders prior to completing 50% of the root bead.\nNYSDPS Staff immediately brought this to the attention of the on-site operator welding\ninspector who, after inspecting the partial root bead, ordered the weld to be cut out.\n5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-5001\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.\nThe operator failed to repair the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of\nthis subpart in that it failed to ensure that repairs were made in a safe manner and are made so as\nto prevent damage to persons according to §195.422(a).\nDuring the inspection of welding operations on the replacement of Valve MOV97A, NYSDPS\ninspector witnessed two fire extinguishers being manned during the welding operation. These\nextinguishers were fully discharged. The NYSDPS inspector immediately brought this to the\nattention of the Operator’s on-site inspector, who ordered that all welding operations stop until\nthe discharged extinguishers were replaced with charged extinguishers.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $67,400 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $18,700\n2 $12,500\n3 $7,500\n4 $16,200\n5 $12,500\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item (1) one, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enterprise\nProducts Partners LP. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and\nmade a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance 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 for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\n120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-5001\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease send all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-\n5001 on each document you submit, and please whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in\nelectronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be\nsent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron E. Coy\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2012-5001\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enterprise Products Partners LP (Enterprise) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance\nof Enterprise Products Partners LP with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Enterprise’s failure to adequately\ninspect the right-of-way along the P41, as prescribed in§195.412(a). Therefore,\nEnterprise must:\na.) perform a right-of-way assessment to identify areas that have excessive ground\nvegetation and/or overhanging tree canopy. Enterprise must perform the right-of-way\nassessment sometime during the months of July, August and/or September because it is\nthe time of year when vegetation is the heaviest. The right-of-way assessment must be\nconducted during this time interval that first occurs following the issuance of the Final\nOrder.\nb.) develop a plan to remediate each location identified in Item 1(a).\nc.) implement and complete the said plan within 120 days after completion of the right-\nof-way assessment in 1(a).\n2. Enterprise must make all related records and documentation available for review by the\nDirector upon request.\n3. Enterprise must provide a summary report to demonstrate the efforts applied to Item 1\nto the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,\n820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628 within 30 days after completion\nof Item 1.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration , Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ\n08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-5001 on each document you submit. It is requested\nthat these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 6 of 6\n\n120125001_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 9, 2012\nMr. Michael A. Creel\nPresident and CEO\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002-5227\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-5001\nDear Mr. Creel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $67,400, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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. Byron E. Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Kevin C. Bodenhamer, Sr. Vice-President, Liquid Pipeline Operations, Enterprise\nProducts Partners, LP\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, 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)\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2012-5001\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 27, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the New York State\nDepartment of Public Service (NYSDPS), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline\nsafety inspection of the facilities and records of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise\nor Respondent) in Gilboa, New York (Schoharie County). Enterprise is a subsidiary of Enterprise\nProducts Partners, LP, which transports natural gas, NGL crude oil, refined products, and\npetrochemicals through more than 50,000 miles of pipeline in North America.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated February 2, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and\nProposed Compliance Order. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Enterprise had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a), 195.54(b), 195.406(b), 195.402(a),\nand 195.402(c)(3) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $67,400 for the alleged violations.\nThe Notice also proposed that Respondent be required to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations.\nEnterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated March 1, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested one of the allegations of violation, provided an explanation of its actions, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 http://www.enterpriseproducts.com/corpProfile/businessProfile.shtm (last accessed September 24, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under\nnavigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to the pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) on Line-P41.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise used aerial patrol as its sole method of inspecting\nthe ROW, yet areas on or adjacent to these pipelines were not visible from the air because\nvegetation and tree canopy obscured the ROW.\n2 PHMSA submitted photographs of the\novergrown vegetation and tree canopy.3 Enterprise did not contest the allegation but explained\nthat it would complete mowing and side cutting at the locations in question. Accordingly, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on\nthe portions of its Line-P41 ROW, as more fully described in the Notice and Violation Report.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b), which states:\n§ 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be\nreported under § 195.50 shall as soon as practicable, but not later than 30\ndays after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form\n7000-1, or a facsimile.\n(b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information\nreported or additions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall\nfile a supplemental report within 30 days.4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b) by failing to file a\nsupplemental accident report within 30 days of receiving changes in the information originally\nreported on DOT Form 7000-1 (Report #20100220-15325). 5 Specifically, the Notice alleged\n2 Inadequate ROW inspections due to overgrown conditions occurred at the following locations: Dig sites 12 and 13\n(dig sites related to Corrective Action Order, CPF 1-2010-5008H); Route 30 to Dave Brown Mountain; ROW\nimmediately downstream of Valve 102; Near West Kill Stream Crossing; Dave Brown Mountain to Valve 102; and\nDownstream of Keyserkill Road. Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (February 2, 2012) at 2 and\nExhibit 1.\n3 Violation Report at 5 and Exhibit 1.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 was amended, effective November 26, 2011, but the amendment did not affect paragraph (b)\nor the substance of this allegation of violation. See 75 FR 72907.\n5 On September 2, 2010, PHMSA issued TEPPCO a Corrective Action Order [CPF No. 1-2010-5008H], to address\na hazardous condition arising out of a failure on Line P-41 on August 27, 2010. As of the date of the failure,\nTEPPCO was a subsidiary of Enterprise.\n\n\n\n3\nthat Enterprise failed to update the cause of the accident after receiving a laboratory analysis on\nNovember 12, 2010, identifying the cause of the accident as a circumferential leak that\noriginated at a circumferentially-oriented stress corrosion crack adjacent to the toe of a girth\nweld on the upstream pipe joint.6\nThe original report, filed on October 7, 2010, indicated that the cause of the accident was\nunknown. The company subsequently filed two supplemental reports (Report #s 20100220-\n15326, dated October 7, 2010, and 20100220-15327, dated October 8, 2010), yet provided no\nupdated information on the cause of the accident. According to the Notice, PHMSA contacted\nEnterprise on March 17, 2011, and on May 9, 2011, about supplementing its report on the cause\nof the accident. As of May 11, 2011, Enterprise had still not submitted a supplemental report\nthat identified the cause of the accident.\nIn its Response, Enterprise argued that it had been unable to complete accident report Form\nF7000-1 electronically because its operator pipeline safety identification (OPSID) number had\nbeen suspended by PHMSA due to a change in operator from the former TE Products Pipeline,\nLLC, to Enterprise. The company contended that “[T]hrough continuous correspondence with\nPHMSA Washington personnel, starting in March 2011, the form was updated and finalized with\nPHMSA on May 17, 2011.”7\nA change in OPSID, however, does not relieve an operator of its obligations under § 195.54(b) to\nfile timely supplemental reports. PHMSA regulations provide for alternative reporting methods\nif an operator is unable to submit an accident report electronically, but there is no indication that\nEnterprise attempted or requested any alternative filing method.8\nWritten accident reports provide important information to PHMSA and the public on the nature\nand cause of accidents. Analyzing the facilities involved, the accident type, and the extent of\nharm to public and property, PHMSA is able to determine whether there is a need to take a closer\nlook at the operations and maintenance of a particular pipeline facility and whether to evaluate\nand update current safety regulations or issue new ones. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b) by failing to submit a\nsupplemental accident report (DOT Form 7000-1), with an updated cause of the accident, within\n30 days of receiving changes in the information originally reported.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) . . . .\n6 Violation Report, Exhibit 2 at 6.\n7 Response at 2.\n8 Prior to November 26, 2010, 49 C.F.R. § 195.58 provided for filing reports by U.S. mail. After such date,\n§ 195.58 as amended to require electronic filing, or, if electronic filing presented an undue burden and hardship, by\nalternative methods. An operator must request permission to use an alternate method in advance of the filing\ndeadline.\n\n\n\n4\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or\nother variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each\noperator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control\nthe pressure within this limit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure\nin its pipeline during surges or other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of\nthe established operating pressure limit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the pressure in\nEnterprise’s Line-P41 exceeded the established temporary maximum pressure of 600 psig by\n15 psig when the pressure peaked at 675 psig on October 5, 2010. According to the Notice,\nEnterprise had established a procedure for the evacuation of propane in Line-P41 that included\nan established temporary maximum pressure of 600 psig at the Selkirk Station.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure on its Line-P41 during surges or other\nvariations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the established operating pressure\nlimit.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance (O&M)\nactivities. Specifically, it alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its Construction Specification,\nSPEC LP-9.1, which required that 50% of the root bead of a weld be completed before removal\nof the line-up clamps. According to the Notice, PHMSA inspectors observed Respondent’s\nwelder, during the replacement of Valve MOV97A, remove a line-up clamp prior to completing\n50% of the root bead. The PHMSA inspector immediately notified Enterprise’s on-site welding\ninspector, who inspected the partial root bead and ordered the weld to be cut out.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation but described a plan to modify its welding\nprocedures to address smaller-diameter pipe where it is not practical to obtain 50% of the root\nbead with the line-up clamp still in its original position. Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its manual of written procedures by\nremoving line-up clamps prior to completing 50% of the root bead during welding.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states:\n\n\n\n5\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations: . . .\n(1) . . .\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this\npart.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare and\nfollow a manual of written procedures for conducting maintenance and normal operations.\nSpecifically, it alleged that Enterprise failed to insure that repairs were made in a safe manner\nand so as to prevent damage to persons or property, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a).\nIt alleged that, during a PHMSA inspection, Enterprise personnel were observed performing\nwelding operations to replace Valve MOV97A while manning two fully-discharged fire\nextinguishers. PHMSA immediately notified Respondent’s on-site inspector, who ordered that\nall welding operations stop until the discharged extinguishers were replaced with charged ones.\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. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare\nand follow a manual of written procedures for conducting maintenance and normal operations, to\ninsure that welding operations were performed in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to\npersons or property, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a).\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $67,400 for the violations cited above.\n\n\n\n6\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), for failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to portions of\nits Line-P41 ROW. Enterprise neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty. Maintaining an effective\nsystem of inspections ensures reasonable promptness in the detection of all surface conditions on\nand adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way. Patrolling also alerts the operator to any indication of\npipeline leaks and the detection of excavation activity that could affect the safe operation of the\npipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b), for failing to submit a timely supplemental accident report (DOT Form\n7000-1) with an updated cause of the accident. Enterprise argued that the civil penalty should be\neliminated because the company had made diligent attempts to supplement the accident reporting\nform but could not file electronically due to circumstances beyond its control. Respondent\ncontended that its OPSID number had been suspended, thus preventing the company from\nentering the “Online Data Entry” segment of the PHMSA website to update Form F7000-1.\nEnterprise contended that, starting in March 2011, it had entered into correspondence with\nPHMSA personnel and had updated and finalized the report on May 17, 2011.\nI find the company’s argument unconvincing. Between the date that the company received the\nlaboratory analysis and the date PHMSA contacted Enterprise about supplementing its report,\napproximately four months passed. As I found above, § 195.58 provides for alternative reporting\nmethods if an operator is unable to submit an accident report electronically, provided a proper\nrequest is made in advance for alternative filing. As the operator of Line-P41, Enterprise was\nresponsible for compliance with the reporting requirements outlined under 49 C.F.R. § 195.54\nbut failed to do so.9 In terms of culpability, Respondent knew of its responsibility to submit a\nsupplemental accident report within 30 days of receiving changes in the information originally\nreported; therefore, elimination of the civil penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$12,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.54.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $7,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), by permitting the pressure on Line-P41 during surges or other variations\nfrom normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the established operating pressure limit.\nEnterprise neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying\nelimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $7,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.406(b).\n9 In 1994, PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin reminding pipeline facility owners and operators to submit\nsupplements to gas pipeline incident and hazardous liquid pipeline accident reports as required by the regulations.\nThe advisory bulletin stated that “after the initial report has been submitted, the operator is required to submit a\nsupplemental written report whenever additional relevant information is obtained concerning the particular incident\nor accident. The submittal must be no later than 30 days after acquiring the additional information.” See “Certain\nRequirements Applying to Supplemental Incident/Accident Reports and Estimated Property Damage Totals,”\nAdvisory Bulletin (ADB-94-01), dated January 13, 1994.\n\n\n\n7\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures by removing a line-\nup clamp prior to completing 50% of the root bead during welding. Enterprise neither contested\nthe allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction or elimination of the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $16,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), for failing to prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for\nconducting maintenance and normal operations. Specifically, it alleged that Enterprise failed to\ninsure that repairs were made in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to persons or\nproperty, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.422. Enterprise neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. The gravity\nof the violation and the degree of Respondent’s culpability support the proposed penalty. While\nthis incident did not result in damage to persons or property, such consequences may have been\nlargely fortuitous. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 402(c)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $67,400.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $67,400 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice, for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a). 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\n\n\n\n8\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. 2. 3. 4. With respect to the violation of § 195.412(a) (Item 1), Enterprise must perform a\nright-of-way assessment to identify areas that have excessive ground vegetation\nand/or overhanging tree canopy.\na. Enterprise must perform the right-of-way assessment sometime during the\nmonths of July, August, and/or September when vegetation is the heaviest.\nThe right-of-way assessment must be completed within the time interval that\noccurs immediately after receipt of the Final Order.\nb. Enterprise must develop a plan to remediate each location identified in Item 1\nabove.\nc. Enterprise must implement and complete the remediation plan within 120\ndays after completion of the right-of-way assessment.\nEnterprise must make all related records and documentation of the completed\nitems available for review by the Director upon request.\nEnterprise must provide a summary report to demonstrate completion of Item 1\nto the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628 within\n30 days after completion of Item 1.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration , Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite\n103, W. Trenton, NJ, 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-5001 on each document\nyou submit. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total\ncost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges 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 $100,000 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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\n\n\n\n9\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Build","truncated":true,"body_characters":40754}