{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120175020W","title":"ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-05-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.402(a), 195.420(c), 195.436, 195.583(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175020w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175020w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175020w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120175020W","body":"Warning Letter involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.420(c),  195.436,  195.583(b). The case was opened on 2017-05-04 and is reported as closed as of 2017-05-04. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120175020W_Operator Response to Notice_08022017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175020W/120175020W_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08022017.pdf\n\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175020W/120175020W_Warning%20Letter_05042017.pdf\n\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175020W/120175020W_Warning%20Letter_05042017_text.pdf\n\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMay 4, 2017\nMr. Graham Bacon\nGroup SVP, Operations & EHS&T\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 1-2017-5020W\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nOn March 21, 2016 – December 2, 2016, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) procedures, records and pipeline facilities in\nHouston, Texas; Greensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio; Morgantown,\nPennsylvania; Sorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Indiana; and Little Rock, Arkansas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged 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:\n1. §195.402(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nEnterprise failed to follow its manual of written procedures for its emergency procedures, in\naccordance with § 195.403(a).\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2017-5020W\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA unit 3051-Greensburg, in Greensburg, Pennsylvania; the\nPHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise procedure – O&M manual – Section 905 – Emergency\nProcedures. The procedure states, “A review with personnel is conducted at least once each\ncalendar year not to exceed 15 months, on their performance in meeting the objectives of the\nemergency response training program.”\nThe PHMSA inspector asked for 2016 Greensburg technicians record reviews and Enterprise\nprovided, “Greensburg OPS and Techs 2016 TF905.” The records showed a box was not checked\nindicating one employee had attended, received and understands the Emergency Response training\non: “Carrying out the emergency procedures established under 195.402 that relate to their\nassignments.” The employee and supervisor both signed off on 2/23/16 certifying that, “…Each\nindividual has successfully completed the above requirements.”\nThese requirements, however, were not met as not all information was filled out on the relevant\nrecord. Thus, Enterprise failed to follow its manual of written Emergency Procedures as required\nby §195.402(a).\n2. §195.402(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\nEach 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. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nEnterprise failed to follow its manual of written procedures regarding its Safe Work Permits.\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA inspection unit 3051-Greensburg, in Greensburg, Pennsylvania;\nEnterprise reviewed with the PHMSA inspector the procedure form, “Safe Work Permit” prior to\nconducting field operations during the field inspections. The form states, “Mandatory minimum\nPPE: Hard hat, FRC, safety glasses and safety-toed footwear.” These forms were signed and\napproved by Enterprise Safety Specialist, Operations Managers and technicians. During each\nportion of the field inspection, several Enterprise personnel did not have adequate minimum PPE,\nper the Enterprise Safe Work Permit. Enterprise personnel did not have appropriate safety glasses\nduring the field operations inspections.\nThe PHMSA inspector asked Enterprise about the mandatory minimum PPE requirements.\nEnterprise responded, “All Enterprise personnel have company approved, and ANSI Z87.1\nstandard safety glasses.” Enterprise personnel safety glasses, however, did not show an ANSI\nZ87.1 label, nor were these glasses considered safety glasses. Subsequently, multiple Enterprise\npersonnel replaced their existing glasses with new safety glasses. One Enterprise personnel\ncontinued to wear non-approved brand sunglasses while conducting field inspections. Thus,\nEnterprise personnel failed to meet the minimum requirements as stated on the Enterprise Safe\nWork Permit form.\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2017-5020W\n3. §195.402(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\nEach 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. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nEnterprise failed to follow its O&M Manual Section 905 procedures, Emergency Response\nTraining. The emergency response records were inadequate as the records failed to follow\nEnterprise procedure, per the requirements of §195.402(a).\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA inspection unit 2464-Lou Tex in Sorrento, Louisiana; the\nPHMSA inspector reviewed 2013 to 2015 emergency response training records.\nEnterprise O&M Manual Section 905 – Emergency Procedures, dated 11/10/11 states (Procedure),\n“The review is documented on form 905A and 905B and retained by Local Area Operations…Each\nPipeline Supervisor reviews the procedures they are responsible for under the company Emergency\nResponse Plan(s). The appropriate Pipeline Supervisors, as well as, appropriate field personnel\nreceive emergency response training applicable to their responsibilities.”\n“DOT 195.403 Pipeline Emergency Response Training (Employee/Supervisor Signoff)” form,\ndated 5/21/15 was inadequate, as the record was not completed per Enterprise’s Procedure.\nThe form did not include the following:\n1. Employee Signature and date\n2. Manager/Supervisor Signature and date\nTherefore, Enterprise failed to follow its procedure per the requirements of §195.402(a).\n4. §195.402(a) 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. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nEnterprise’s failed to follow its Emergency Response Training procedures. Specifically, Enterprise\nfailed to document its Pipeline Emergency Response Supervisor Training on the proper form, per\n§195.403(c).\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA inspection unit 3051-Greensburg in Greensburg, Pennsylvania;\nthe PHMSA inspector reviewed Emergency Procedures – Emergency Response Training\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2017-5020W\nSection 905, dated 04/10/15 (Procedure) and 2016 Pipeline Emergency Response Training\nRecords Forms 905A and 905B (Records).\nThe Procedure states, “This review is documented on Form 905A and retained by Local Area\nOperations.” The PHMSA inspector requested emergency response training records for emergency\nresponders and supervisors. Enterprise provided, emergency response personnel training records\non Form 905A and supervisor training records on Form 905B. Form 905B however, is not\nincorporated in or mentioned on Enterprise’s Emergency Procedures.\nThe PHMSA inspector asked Enterprise which is the form should be used to document pipeline\nemergency response supervisor training. Enterprise responded, “Form 905A is the new form that\nis used and 905B has been removed from the procedure.”\nEnterprise failed to follow procedures by documenting its supervisor training review on wrong\nform.\n5. §195.420(c) Valve Maintenance\n(c) Each operator shall provide protection for each valve from unauthorized\noperation and from vandalism.\nEnterprise failed to provide protection for each valve from unauthorized operation and from\nvandalism, as per § 195.420(c). At the time of the inspection of PHMSA inspection unit 3051-\nGreensburg in Greensburg, Pennsylvania; valves located at the following locations were not\nprotected from vandalism:\n1. Blairsville pump station, PA - “milepost 83.270 – Blairsville Station – A3 pipeline”\nLat. 40.43331099677871, Long. -79.21497509822176\n2. Blairsville pump station, PA - “milepost 83.290 – Blairsville Station – A3 pipeline”\nLat. 40.43331099677871, Long. -79.21497509822176\n3. Rochester Mills pump station, PA – “milepost 48.511 – Rochester Mills – P40 pipeline”\nLat. 40.78677627261801, Long. -79.00503549732174\nEach valve was within an enclosed and locked fence, however, the fencing by each gate has a large\nspace gap between the ground and the bottom of the fencing, which can easily allow access by\nunauthorized individuals. Thus, Enterprise failed to provide protection for each valve from\nvandalism as required per 195.420(c).\n6. §195.436 Security of Facilities\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and breakout tank\narea and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from vandalism and\nunauthorized entry.\nEnterprise failed to provide protection for each pumping station and breakout tank area and other\nexposed facility (such as scraper traps) from vandalism and unauthorized entry, as per §195.436.\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA unit 3051-Greensburg in Greensburg, Pennsylvania; the\nPHMSA inspector visited the pump station in Rochester Mills, PA (Milepost 48.511 – P40 pipeline\nLat. 40.78677627261801, Long. -79.00503549732174). There were several locations within the\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2017-5020W\nfacility that were not protected from vandalism and unauthorized entry. The fencing which\nenclosed the facility had large gaps between the ground and the bottom of the fencing in several\nlocations which can allow access from unauthorized individuals and safety concerns. Thus,\nEnterprise failed to provide protection for each pumping station from vandalism and unauthorized\nentry, as required per 195.436.\n7. §195.583 Monitoring Atmospheric Corrosion Control\n(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air interfaces,\nunder thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at\ndeck penetrations, and in spans over water\nEnterprise failed to give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air interfaces, as per §195.583(b).\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA inspection unit 12232-AR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas; the\nPHMSA inspector observed approximately 40 feet of aboveground pipe that was partially covered\nby rock approximately 3 inches below ground, at the North Little Rock, Arkansas delivery station.\nThe PHMSA inspector asked Enterprise how they conducted an atmospheric inspection of the\nunderside of the pipe and flanges. The Enterprise CP technician stated, “Only the aboveground\nsegments are inspected for atmospheric corrosion due to the pipe coating.”\nEnterprise failed to give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air interfaces, per the requirement\n§195.583(b).\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $205,638\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,056,380 for a related series of\nviolations. For violation occurring between January 4, 2012 to August 1, 2016, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed\n$2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the\nitems identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Enterprise Products Operating, LLC\nbeing subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, please submit all correspondence in this\nmatter to Robert Burrough, Acting Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road,\nSuite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1- 2017-5020W on each document you\nsubmit, and whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may\nbe emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the\noriginal paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nBe advised 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 must\nprovide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential\ntreatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2017-5020W\nAdditionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response\nletter pertains solely to one CPF case number.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nActing Director, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n120175020W_Warning Letter_05042017_text Page 6 of 6","truncated":false,"body_characters":15599}