# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

120125001_Closure Letter_04052013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Closure%20Letter_04052013.pdf

120125001_Closure Letter_04052013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Closure%20Letter_04052013_text.pdf

120125001_Final Order_10092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Final%20Order_10092012.pdf

120125001_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_Final%20Order_10092012_text.pdf

120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012.pdf

120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125001/120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012_text.pdf

120125001_Closure Letter_04052013_text.pdf

U.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
West Trenton, NJ 08628
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL
April 05, 2013
Terry Hulburt
Sr. Vice President, Operations
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 1-2012-5001
Dear Mr. Hulburt:
On October 9, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued to Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) a Final Order in the
above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.
We received confirmation of payment of the civil penalty on November 6, 2012. Subsequently, we
received a letter dated November 28, 2012, from Kevin Bodenhamer, Senior Vice President, EHS&T at
Enterprise, wherein he summarized the actions taken to comply with this Order, along with documents
that were enclosed with it. Based on our review of those documents that he provided, injunction with
payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that Enterprise has complied with the terms of this
Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters
involved in this case.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bryon E. Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: NYSDPS

120125001_NOPV-PCP-PCO_02022012_text.pdf

U.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
Of Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628
Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL
February 2, 2012
Mr. Terry L. Hurlburt
Senior Vice President-Operations
Enterprise Products Operating LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002-5227
CPF 1-2012-5001
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
As the result of the incident that occurred on Enterprise’s 8-inch Line P-41, along Keyserkill
Road in Gilboa, New York (Schoharie County), on August 27, 2010, an inspector from the New
York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), acting as agents for the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code, conducted inspections during the remediation activities involving line P41 in New
York.
As a result of these inspections, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violation(s) are:



CPF 1-2012-5001
1. §195.412(a) Inspection of rights of way and crossings under navigable waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times
each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline
right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other
appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
Enterprise did not adequately inspect the surface conditions, while utilizing fixed wing aircraft,
on or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) on line P41.
Enterprise was unable to adequately inspect the pipeline right-of-way on line P41 as they failed
to maintain the growth of vegetation on the P41 right-of-way, including the tree canopy over the
right-of-way. The overgrown right-of-way did not allow for proper aerial inspection of the
surface conditions on or adjacent to the right-of-way as outlined in 49 CFR Part 195. At the time
of the inspection, Enterprise indicated that they were using aerial patrol as the only method to
meet the requirements of §195.412(a). However, Enterprise had failed to maintain its right-of-
way sufficiently to allow for the adequate inspection of the surface conditions by aerial patrolling
alone.
Inadequate right-of-way inspections were conducted at the following areas where overgrown
conditions were identified:
• Dig sites 12 and 13 (dig sites related to CAO 120105008H);
• Route 30 to Dave Brown Mountain;
• Right of way immediately downstream of Valve 102;
• Near West Kill Stream Crossing;
• Dave Brown Mountain to Valve 102; and
• Downstream of Keyserkill Road.
2. §195.54 Accident reports.
(b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information reported or
additions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall file a supplemental
report within 30 days.
Enterprise failed to submit a supplemental report to PHMSA within 30 days of receiving
additional information related to an accident that occurred on August 27, 2010 in Schoharie
County, New York.
On November 12, 2010, Enterprise received a laboratory analysis report titled “Investigation of a
leak on 8 inch P41 pipeline at MP 133.87; W. Greg Morris (Nov 12, 2010),
”Keiffner and
Associates. This report identified the cause of the accident to be due to a circumferential leak
that originated at a circumferentially –oriented stress corrosion crack (SCC) adjacent to the toe of
a girth weld on the upstream pipe joint. On March 17, 2011, and again on May 9, 2011, PHMSA
120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 2 of 6



CPF 1-2012-5001
representative, Blaine Keener, contacted Enterprise via email requesting that a supplemental
report be submitted identifying the cause of the 8/27/2010 incident in Schoharie County,
New York. As of May 11, 2011, Enterprise had still not provided the supplemental report update
as requested by PHMSA and as required by Section 195.54(b) of the code.
3. §195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other
variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure
limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator must provide
adequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure within this limit.
Enterprise permitted the pressure on the P41 pipeline to exceed 110 percent of the operating
pressure limit established for this pipeline.
Following the accident that occurred on 8/27/2010, Enterprise established a procedure for the
evacuation of propane in the P41 line from Jefferson Station to Selkirk Station. In that procedure
Enterprise established a temporary maximum pressure of 600 psig at Selkirk Station. Including
the allowance for 110 percent, this calculates to 660 psig.
During the propane evacuation process on 10/05/2010, Enterprise exceeded the allowance for the
established temporary maximum pressure by 15 psig when the pressure peaked at 675 psig.
4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of
written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities
and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.
Enterprise failed to follow the applicable ENTERPRISE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION
SPEC LP-9.1, which requires that line-up clamps not be removed prior to completing 50% of the
root bead. During the replacement of Valve MOV97A, the inspector witnessed a weld in which
the line-up clamp was removed by one of the welders prior to completing 50% of the root bead.
NYSDPS Staff immediately brought this to the attention of the on-site operator welding
inspector who, after inspecting the partial root bead, ordered the weld to be cut out.
5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 3 of 6



CPF 1-2012-5001
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
The operator failed to repair the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of
this subpart in that it failed to ensure that repairs were made in a safe manner and are made so as
to prevent damage to persons according to §195.422(a).
During the inspection of welding operations on the replacement of Valve MOV97A, NYSDPS
inspector witnessed two fire extinguishers being manned during the welding operation. These
extinguishers were fully discharged. The NYSDPS inspector immediately brought this to the
attention of the Operator’s on-site inspector, who ordered that all welding operations stop until
the discharged extinguishers were replaced with charged extinguishers.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $67,400 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $18,700
2 $12,500
3 $7,500
4 $16,200
5 $12,500
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item (1) one, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enterprise
Products Partners LP. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and
made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
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
120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 4 of 6



CPF 1-2012-5001
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.
Please send all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern
Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-
5001 on each document you submit, and please whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in
electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be
sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.
Sincerely,
Byron E. Coy
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 5 of 6



CPF 1-2012-5001
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enterprise Products Partners LP (Enterprise) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance
of Enterprise Products Partners LP with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Enterprise’s failure to adequately
inspect the right-of-way along the P41, as prescribed in§195.412(a). Therefore,
Enterprise must:
a.) perform a right-of-way assessment to identify areas that have excessive ground
vegetation and/or overhanging tree canopy. Enterprise must perform the right-of-way
assessment sometime during the months of July, August and/or September because it is
the time of year when vegetation is the heaviest. The right-of-way assessment must be
conducted during this time interval that first occurs following the issuance of the Final
Order.
b.) develop a plan to remediate each location identified in Item 1(a).
c.) implement and complete the said plan within 120 days after completion of the right-
of-way assessment in 1(a).
2. Enterprise must make all related records and documentation available for review by the
Director upon request.
3. Enterprise must provide a summary report to demonstrate the efforts applied to Item 1
to the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628 within 30 days after completion
of Item 1.
4. It is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total
to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration , Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ
08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-5001 on each document you submit. It is requested
that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
120125001_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02022012 Page 6 of 6

120125001_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf

OCTOBER 9, 2012
Mr. Michael A. Creel
President and CEO
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002-5227
Re: CPF No. 1-2012-5001
Dear Mr. Creel:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $67,400, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Byron E. Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS
Mr. Kevin C. Bodenhamer, Sr. Vice-President, Liquid Pipeline Operations, Enterprise
Products Partners, LP
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2012-5001
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On August 27, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the New York State
Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline
safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise
or Respondent) in Gilboa, New York (Schoharie County). Enterprise is a subsidiary of Enterprise
Products Partners, LP, which transports natural gas, NGL crude oil, refined products, and
petrochemicals through more than 50,000 miles of pipeline in North America.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated February 2, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Enterprise had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a), 195.54(b), 195.406(b), 195.402(a),
and 195.402(c)(3) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $67,400 for the alleged violations.
The Notice also proposed that Respondent be required to take certain measures to correct the
alleged violations.
Enterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated March 1, 2012 (Response). The company
contested one of the allegations of violation, provided an explanation of its actions, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
1 http://www.enterpriseproducts.com/corpProfile/businessProfile.shtm (last accessed September 24, 2012).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:
§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under
navigable waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least
26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent
to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,
driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the
surface conditions on or adjacent to the pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) on Line-P41.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise used aerial patrol as its sole method of inspecting
the ROW, yet areas on or adjacent to these pipelines were not visible from the air because
vegetation and tree canopy obscured the ROW.
2 PHMSA submitted photographs of the
overgrown vegetation and tree canopy.3 Enterprise did not contest the allegation but explained
that it would complete mowing and side cutting at the locations in question. Accordingly, I find
that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on
the portions of its Line-P41 ROW, as more fully described in the Notice and Violation Report.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b), which states:
§ 195.54 Accident reports.
(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be
reported under § 195.50 shall as soon as practicable, but not later than 30
days after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form
7000-1, or a facsimile.
(b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information
reported or additions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall
file a supplemental report within 30 days.4
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b) by failing to file a
supplemental accident report within 30 days of receiving changes in the information originally
reported on DOT Form 7000-1 (Report #20100220-15325). 5 Specifically, the Notice alleged
2 Inadequate ROW inspections due to overgrown conditions occurred at the following locations: Dig sites 12 and 13
(dig sites related to Corrective Action Order, CPF 1-2010-5008H); Route 30 to Dave Brown Mountain; ROW
immediately downstream of Valve 102; Near West Kill Stream Crossing; Dave Brown Mountain to Valve 102; and
Downstream of Keyserkill Road. Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (February 2, 2012) at 2 and
Exhibit 1.
3 Violation Report at 5 and Exhibit 1.
4 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 was amended, effective November 26, 2011, but the amendment did not affect paragraph (b)
or the substance of this allegation of violation. See 75 FR 72907.
5 On September 2, 2010, PHMSA issued TEPPCO a Corrective Action Order [CPF No. 1-2010-5008H], to address
a hazardous condition arising out of a failure on Line P-41 on August 27, 2010. As of the date of the failure,
TEPPCO was a subsidiary of Enterprise.



3
that Enterprise failed to update the cause of the accident after receiving a laboratory analysis on
November 12, 2010, identifying the cause of the accident as a circumferential leak that
originated at a circumferentially-oriented stress corrosion crack adjacent to the toe of a girth
weld on the upstream pipe joint.6
The original report, filed on October 7, 2010, indicated that the cause of the accident was
unknown. The company subsequently filed two supplemental reports (Report #s 20100220-
15326, dated October 7, 2010, and 20100220-15327, dated October 8, 2010), yet provided no
updated information on the cause of the accident. According to the Notice, PHMSA contacted
Enterprise on March 17, 2011, and on May 9, 2011, about supplementing its report on the cause
of the accident. As of May 11, 2011, Enterprise had still not submitted a supplemental report
that identified the cause of the accident.
In its Response, Enterprise argued that it had been unable to complete accident report Form
F7000-1 electronically because its operator pipeline safety identification (OPSID) number had
been suspended by PHMSA due to a change in operator from the former TE Products Pipeline,
LLC, to Enterprise. The company contended that “[T]hrough continuous correspondence with
PHMSA Washington personnel, starting in March 2011, the form was updated and finalized with
PHMSA on May 17, 2011.”7
A change in OPSID, however, does not relieve an operator of its obligations under § 195.54(b) to
file timely supplemental reports. PHMSA regulations provide for alternative reporting methods
if an operator is unable to submit an accident report electronically, but there is no indication that
Enterprise attempted or requested any alternative filing method.8
Written accident reports provide important information to PHMSA and the public on the nature
and cause of accidents. Analyzing the facilities involved, the accident type, and the extent of
harm to public and property, PHMSA is able to determine whether there is a need to take a closer
look at the operations and maintenance of a particular pipeline facility and whether to evaluate
and update current safety regulations or issue new ones. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b) by failing to submit a
supplemental accident report (DOT Form 7000-1), with an updated cause of the accident, within
30 days of receiving changes in the information originally reported.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states:
§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) . . . .
6 Violation Report, Exhibit 2 at 6.
7 Response at 2.
8 Prior to November 26, 2010, 49 C.F.R. § 195.58 provided for filing reports by U.S. mail. After such date,
§ 195.58 as amended to require electronic filing, or, if electronic filing presented an undue burden and hardship, by
alternative methods. An operator must request permission to use an alternate method in advance of the filing
deadline.



4
(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or
other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the
operating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each
operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control
the pressure within this limit.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure
in its pipeline during surges or other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of
the established operating pressure limit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the pressure in
Enterprise’s Line-P41 exceeded the established temporary maximum pressure of 600 psig by
15 psig when the pressure peaked at 675 psig on October 5, 2010. According to the Notice,
Enterprise had established a procedure for the evacuation of propane in Line-P41 that included
an established temporary maximum pressure of 600 psig at the Selkirk Station.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure on its Line-P41 during surges or other
variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the established operating pressure
limit.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance (O&M)
activities. Specifically, it alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its Construction Specification,
SPEC LP-9.1, which required that 50% of the root bead of a weld be completed before removal
of the line-up clamps. According to the Notice, PHMSA inspectors observed Respondent’s
welder, during the replacement of Valve MOV97A, remove a line-up clamp prior to completing
50% of the root bead. The PHMSA inspector immediately notified Enterprise’s on-site welding
inspector, who inspected the partial root bead and ordered the weld to be cut out.
Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation but described a plan to modify its welding
procedures to address smaller-diameter pipe where it is not practical to obtain 50% of the root
bead with the line-up clamp still in its original position. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its manual of written procedures by
removing line-up clamps prior to completing 50% of the root bead during welding.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states:



5
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and
maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to
provide safety during maintenance and normal operations: . . .
(1) . . .
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in
accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this
part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare and
follow a manual of written procedures for conducting maintenance and normal operations.
Specifically, it alleged that Enterprise failed to insure that repairs were made in a safe manner
and so as to prevent damage to persons or property, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a).
It alleged that, during a PHMSA inspection, Enterprise personnel were observed performing
welding operations to replace Valve MOV97A while manning two fully-discharged fire
extinguishers. PHMSA immediately notified Respondent’s on-site inspector, who ordered that
all welding operations stop until the discharged extinguishers were replaced with charged ones.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare
and follow a manual of written procedures for conducting maintenance and normal operations, to
insure that welding operations were performed in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to
persons or property, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a).
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $67,400 for the violations cited above.



6
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,700 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), for failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to portions of
its Line-P41 ROW. Enterprise neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty. Maintaining an effective
system of inspections ensures reasonable promptness in the detection of all surface conditions on
and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way. Patrolling also alerts the operator to any indication of
pipeline leaks and the detection of excavation activity that could affect the safe operation of the
pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b), for failing to submit a timely supplemental accident report (DOT Form
7000-1) with an updated cause of the accident. Enterprise argued that the civil penalty should be
eliminated because the company had made diligent attempts to supplement the accident reporting
form but could not file electronically due to circumstances beyond its control. Respondent
contended that its OPSID number had been suspended, thus preventing the company from
entering the “Online Data Entry” segment of the PHMSA website to update Form F7000-1.
Enterprise contended that, starting in March 2011, it had entered into correspondence with
PHMSA personnel and had updated and finalized the report on May 17, 2011.
I find the company’s argument unconvincing. Between the date that the company received the
laboratory analysis and the date PHMSA contacted Enterprise about supplementing its report,
approximately four months passed. As I found above, § 195.58 provides for alternative reporting
methods if an operator is unable to submit an accident report electronically, provided a proper
request is made in advance for alternative filing. As the operator of Line-P41, Enterprise was
responsible for compliance with the reporting requirements outlined under 49 C.F.R. § 195.54
but failed to do so.9 In terms of culpability, Respondent knew of its responsibility to submit a
supplemental accident report within 30 days of receiving changes in the information originally
reported; therefore, elimination of the civil penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$12,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.54.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $7,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), by permitting the pressure on Line-P41 during surges or other variations
from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the established operating pressure limit.
Enterprise neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying
elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $7,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.406(b).
9 In 1994, PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin reminding pipeline facility owners and operators to submit
supplements to gas pipeline incident and hazardous liquid pipeline accident reports as required by the regulations.
The advisory bulletin stated that “after the initial report has been submitted, the operator is required to submit a
supplemental written report whenever additional relevant information is obtained concerning the particular incident
or accident. The submittal must be no later than 30 days after acquiring the additional information.” See “Certain
Requirements Applying to Supplemental Incident/Accident Reports and Estimated Property Damage Totals,”
Advisory Bulletin (ADB-94-01), dated January 13, 1994.



7
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,200 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures by removing a line-
up clamp prior to completing 50% of the root bead during welding. Enterprise neither contested
the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction or elimination of the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $16,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), for failing to prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for
conducting maintenance and normal operations. Specifically, it alleged that Enterprise failed to
insure that repairs were made in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to persons or
property, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.422. Enterprise neither contested the allegation nor
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. The gravity
of the violation and the degree of Respondent’s culpability support the proposed penalty. While
this incident did not result in damage to persons or property, such consequences may have been
largely fortuitous. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 402(c)(3).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $67,400.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $67,400 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice, for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the



8
authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the
following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its
operations:
1. 2. 3. 4. With respect to the violation of § 195.412(a) (Item 1), Enterprise must perform a
right-of-way assessment to identify areas that have excessive ground vegetation
and/or overhanging tree canopy.
a. Enterprise must perform the right-of-way assessment sometime during the
months of July, August, and/or September when vegetation is the heaviest.
The right-of-way assessment must be completed within the time interval that
occurs immediately after receipt of the Final Order.
b. Enterprise must develop a plan to remediate each location identified in Item 1
above.
c. Enterprise must implement and complete the remediation plan within 120
days after completion of the right-of-way assessment.
Enterprise must make all related records and documentation of the completed
items available for review by the Director upon request.
Enterprise must provide a summary report to demonstrate completion of Item 1
to the Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 820 Bear Tavern Rd, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628 within
30 days after completion of Item 1.
It is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and
submit the total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration , Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite
103, W. Trenton, NJ, 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-5001 on each document
you submit. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total
cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and
analyses; and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other
changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of



9
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Build
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 40754