{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120175021M","title":"ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-05-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.202, 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175021m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175021m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175021m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120175021M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(3). The case was opened on 2017-05-04 and is reported as closed as of 2019-02-11. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120175021M_Closure Letter_02112019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Closure%20Letter_02112019.pdf\n\n120175021M_Closure Letter_02112019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Closure%20Letter_02112019_text.pdf\n\n120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05042017.pdf\n\n120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05042017_text.pdf\n\n120175021M_Operator Response to Notice_08022017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08022017.pdf\n\n120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_10152018.pdf\n\n120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175021M/120175021M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_10152018_text.pdf\n\n120175021M_Closure Letter_02112019_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nFebruary 11, 2019\nMr. Graham Bacon\nGroup SVP, Operations & EHS&T\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 1-2017-5021M\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nFrom March 21, 2016 – December 2, 2016, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspected Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) procedures, records and pipeline\nfacilities in Houston, Texas; Greensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio;\nMorgantown, Pennsylvania; Sorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Indiana; and\nLittle Rock, Arkansas. As a result of the inspection, Enterprise was issued a Notice of Amendment\non May 4, 2017, which proposed amendment of its procedures.\nOn May 11, 2017, Enterprise requested a time extension of 60 days to provide a total of 90 days\nto respond. PHMSA granted this request on May 15, 2017. On August 2, 2017 Enterprise\nsubmitted its response to the NOA. On October 15, 2018, PHMSA issued an Order Directing\nAmendment (ODA) for Enterprise to further amend and modify its procedures. On\nNovember 6, 2018, Enterprise requested a time extension to fully respond to the ODA. PHMSA\ngranted this request on November 19, 2018. Enterprise submitted its amended procedures on\nJanuary 15, 2018. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies\noutlined in this ODA have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf\n\nOctober 15, 2018\nMr. A. J. Teague\nDirector and Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 1-2017-5021M\nDear Mr. Teague:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case to\nyour subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. It makes findings of inadequate\nprocedures, withdraws one allegation, and requires that Enterprise amend certain portions of its\noperating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures has been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Graham W. Bacon, Executive Vice President, Operations & Engineering, Enterprise\nProducts Partners, LP\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________________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5021M\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom March 21 through December 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an inspection of the procedures, records and facilities of Enterprise Products\nOperating, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), in Houston, Texas; Greensburg, PA; Dubois, PA;\nLebanon, OH; Morgantown, PA; Sorrento, LA; Monee, IL; Seymour, IN; and Little Rock, AR.\nEnterprise is a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, that provides midstream energy\nservices to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil,\npetrochemicals, and refined products throughout the United States. Enterprise’s NGL Pipelines\n& Services segment operates approximately 19,668 miles of pipeline, related product-storage\nfacilities, and NGL fractionators. Respondent’s Crude Oil Pipelines & Services segment operates\napproximately 5,402 miles of crude-oil pipelines and storage terminals and markets crude oil.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 4, 2017, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.206, the Notice proposed finding that certain of Enterprise’s plans and procedures were\ninadequate to assure safe operation and proposed that Respondent amend its procedures for\noperations, maintenance and emergencies.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time, Enterprise provided a written response dated\nAugust 2, 2017 (Response). The company contested several allegations and submitted amended\nprocedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 See https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/ngl-pipelines-services/ngl-pipelines. Current as of July 23,\n2018.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5021M\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states in relevant part:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s construction procedures were inadequate with regard to 49\nC.F.R. § 195.202 in that they failed to specify inspection requirements. Specifically,\nEnterprise’s Project Coordination and Inspection Standard 8503 (Procedure 8503) did not\nprovide guidance on how to conduct construction inspections in accordance with § 195.204.\nThat section states:\n§ 195.204. Inspection – general.\nInspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or\npipeline systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any\noperator personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and\nqualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An operator must not\nuse operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator\npersonnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in\nthis section prohibits the operator from inspecting construction tasks with\noperator personnel who are involved in other construction tasks.\nIn addition, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, Enterprise personnel\nacknowledged that this information was not included in the company’s inspection procedures.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and submitted an amended Procedure\n8503. The Director reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had\nbeen corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s\nprocedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately\nmodified. Therefore, no further action is necessary.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\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. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5021M\nPage 3\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Enterprise’s operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) because they failed to provide sufficient\nguidance on record retention and documentation in accordance with § 195.404(b)(2), which\nprovides that operators must maintain, for at least three years, daily operating records that\nindicate any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures under § 195.402 apply.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s O&M Manual Section 801 – Abnormal\nOperation Procedures, dated 11/12/13, (Procedure 801), and its “Ten AOC (Abnormal\nOperating Conditions) Responder” records had conflicting record-retention periods from each\nother and from § 195.404(b)(2). In addition, the Notice alleged that Procedure 801 failed to\ndefine the location where abnormal operating conditions must be documented.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and submitted amended procedures\nwhich removed conflicting elements and harmonized them with the requirements of\n§ 195.404(b)(2). The Director reviewed the amended procedures and concluded that the\ninadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find\nthat Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently\nbeen adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is necessary.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above, because they lacked\nsufficient detail on leak detection. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s CPM O&M\nManual, dated 3/1/11 (Procedure CPM): (1) provided conflicting information for leak-detection\nthresholds; (2) failed to provide a proper link between the performance evaluation section of\nProcedure CPM and the company’s leak-detection strategy that was supposed to be found at\nAppendix A of Procedure CPM; (3) conflicted with statements and records otherwise provided\nby Enterprise; (4) failed to provide guidance on provisions or modifications to leak detection on\nhigh consequence area pipeline segments lacking Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition\n(SCADA) systems; and (5) failed to provide guidance on where CPM records were to be\nmaintained.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and submitted amended procedures\nwhich, inter alia, corrected typographical errors and restructured Respondent’s leak-detection\ntarget thresholds. The Director reviewed the amended procedures and concluded that the\ninadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find\nthat Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently\nbeen adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is necessary.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5021M\nPage 4\n(a) …\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\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(3) because they failed to include a proper reference to an American Petroleum\nInstitute (API) standard that PHMSA had incorporated by reference into 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Miscellaneous Operating Procedures – Section\n1305 (Over Pressure Safety Devices) and Section 1307 (Breakout Tanks), dated 11/12/13\n(collectively, Procedures), failed to provide the correct API standard related to construction and\nmodification of above-ground storage tanks as per § 195.428(c). The Procedures allegedly\nreferenced API Recommended Practice (RP) 2350 when they should have referenced API\nStandard 2510, section 7.1.2 (incorporated by reference, see 49 C.F.R. § 195.3), when discussing\noverfill protection systems.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and stated that it was submitting\namended procedures which purported to remedy the conflict with § 195.428(c). The Director\nwas unable to review the amended procedures because they were not attached to Enterprise’s\nresponse. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s\nprocedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice. Enterprise is hereby ordered to amend its\nprocedures to include a proper reference to an API standard, as required by § 195.428(c).\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were\ninadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), as quoted above, because they lacked\nsufficient guidance, as set forth in § 195.404(c)(3), for compliance with cathodic-protection\nrecord keeping. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Corrosion Prevention Program\nProcedure – Rectifier Monitoring CP15 (Procedure CP15), required only one year of record-\nretention instead of the two years required under § 195.404(c)(3), and follow-up communications\nprovided further conflicting data about the retention and location of records.\nIn its Response, Enterprise noted that Procedure CP15 was not intended to meet the\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (including §§ 195.404(c)(3) and 195.589(c)), but was merely\na tool to assist field operators in troubleshooting and identification of systemic problems.\nInstead, Respondent pointed to Section 1.3 of Procedure CP15, which specified a records-\nretention cycle of at least five years. The Director reviewed the Response and concurred with\nEnterprise that its current procedure is adequate. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the\nevidence, this Item is withdrawn.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s emergency procedures were inadequate with\nregard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), as quoted above, because they failed to provide adequate\ndetail regarding procedures for maintaining firefighting equipment. Specifically, the Notice\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5021M\nPage 5\nalleged that Enterprise’s firefighting-equipment procedure, Miscellaneous Operating Procedures\nSection 1306 (Procedure 1306), dated 11/12/2013, failed to include guidance on how\nRespondent was supposed to maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and\nbreakout tank area, as per § 195.430. Additionally, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s\nProcedure 1306 lacked details such as: 1) documentation requirements; 2) follow-up and\ndocumentation of remedial issues; 3) record-retention requirements; 4) inspection frequency; 5)\npersonnel responsible for “analysis” and “approval” tasks; and 6) criteria for documentation,\nincluding “Completed” and “Satisfactory” guidelines.\nIn its Response, Enterprise asserted that Procedure 1306 adequately met the requirements of\n§ 195.430 because it referenced the company’s Safety Policies Manual (SPM), which provided\nmore than sufficient detail. Having reviewed the SPM, I find that it is a nine-page policy\ndocument that “describes the fire protection equipment located throughout all facilities owned\nand operated by [Enterprise]” and includes “inspection, maintenance and training requirements\nfor the operation of fire water systems, fixed dry chemical, carbon dioxide and Clean Agent\nextinguishing systems.”2 It outlines proper positioning, location and operation of fire protection\nthroughout Enterprise’s system, but does not specifically address pump stations and breakout\ntanks, as referenced in § 195.430. I also note that Enterprise’s procedure lacked detail on\ndocument-retention requirements, personnel responsible for “Analysis” and “Approval,” and the\ncriteria for documentation, including “Completed” and “Satisfactory” guidelines. Accordingly,\nbased upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as\nalleged in the Notice, because they fail to include critical information necessary to maintain\npublic safety under 49 C.F.R § 190.206. Enterprise is hereby ordered to amend its Procedures to\ninclude sufficient detail concerning maintenance of firefighting equipment at pump stations and\nbreakout tank areas as referenced in § 195.430.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Enterprise is ordered to revise its\nprocedures as specified in Items 4 and 6 above. Respondent must submit the amended\nprocedures to the Director, Eastern Region, within 30 days following receipt of this Order.\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. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each\nviolation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including required\namendment to procedures, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request,\ngrants a stay.\n2 Response, at Exhibit 10.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5021M\nPage 6\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nOctober 15, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\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 1-2017-5021M\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nFrom March 21, 2016 – December 2, 2016 a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\ninspected Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) procedures, records and pipeline\nfacilities in Houston, Texas; Greensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio;\nMorgantown, Pennsylvania; Sorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Indiana; and Little\nRock, Arkansas. On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies\nfound within Enterprise’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written\nspecifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part.\nEnterprise’s construction procedures were inadequate in that they failed to specify inspection\nrequirements. Specifically, Enterprise’s Project Coordination and Inspection Standard 8503\nprocedure (Procedure) was inadequate in that it does not provide guidance on how to conduct\ninspections in accordance with §195.204.\n§195.204 states: “Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or pipeline\nsystems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any operator personnel used to\nperform the inspection must be trained and qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected.\nAn operator must not use operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator\npersonnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits\n\n\n\nCPF #1-2017-5021M\nthe operator from inspecting construction tasks with operator personnel who are involved in other\nconstruction tasks.”\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise’s Procedure. The Procedure\nfailed to include guidance on how to meet the requirements of §195.204. Enterprise personnel\nstated, “this statement is not included in Enterprise procedures and can be added in.”\n2. §195.402 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 be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nand appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.\nThis manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system\ncommence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nEnterprise’s procedures were inadequate in that they failed to provide sufficient guidance on record\nretention and documentation in accordance with §195.404(b)(2).\n§195.404(b) states: Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating records that\nindicate: (2) Any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures under §195.402 apply.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise O&M Manual Section 801 –\nAbnormal Operation Procedures, dated 11/12/13 (Procedure), and the “Ten AOC [Abnormal\nOperating Conditions] Responder” records.\n1. The Procedure states, “Written reports of abnormal operations will be maintained in the\nlocation DOT files for five (5) years.”\n2. The “Ten AOC Responder” records state, “Retention 2 Full Years.”\nThe record retention period in the Procedure conflicts with the record retention period on the AOC\nrecords, as well as the requirement of §195.404(b)(2).\nIn addition, the Procedure failed to define where AOC’s must be documented. The Procedure\nstates, “Control Room Operations Supervision and/or the location supervisor will retain any\navailable records that may be used to reconstruct the sequence of events surrounding an abnormal\noperation as defined in the section.”\n3. §195.402 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 be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nand appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.\nThis manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system\ncommence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\n120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF #1-2017-5021M\nEnterprise’s procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling\nabnormal operations and emergencies were inadequate. Specifically, Enterprise’s procedures were\ninadequate in that they lack detail on leak detection.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise’s CPM O&M Manual,\ndated 03/01/11 (Procedure).\n1. Appendix A of the Procedure states in part:\n“Tier III target leak threshold will be 12% leak detection in 60 minutes.\nTier III target leak threshold will be 5% leak detection in 60 minutes.”\nThe Risk Level of Pipeline and Target Threshold table states in part:\n“Tier II - 5% leak detection.\nTier III – 12% leak detection.”\nThe Procedure provides conflicting information for leak detection thresholds.\n2. 3. 4. 4. The Performance Evaluation section of the Procedure states:\nAnnual analysis of existing pipeline CPM systems will be performed to determine if a\npipeline system is meeting appropriate leak detection targets as defined in the company\nleak detection strategy (Appendix A) …”\nAppendix A is titled “Risk ranking and target threshold (60 min):” not company leak\ndetection strategy as the reference to Appendix A. There is no link to performance\nevaluations data in the Appendix or elsewhere in Procedure.\nThe CPM system selection section of the Procedure states:\n“Risk scores developed by the IMP process will be used to prioritize implementations.”\nThe PHMSA inspector requested:\na. Requested relevant documents on the annual leak detection review. Enterprise\nprovided, “Leak Detection Budget Request” email correspondence. The email\nstates, “…we have: Performed a high-risk/low-performing analysis of our current\nimplementation…”\nb. Enterprise’s procedure on its CPM risk score. Enterprise stated, “The Tier system\nis not used, and the company currently uses the risk model to establish high risk\napproach, not a Tier approach.”\nThe procedure conflicts with the statements and records provided by Enterprise.\nThe procedure does not provide guidance on:\na. Provisions or modifications to leak detection for lines without SCADA located in\nHCA areas.\nb. Where the CPM records are maintained/documented.\n§ 195.402(c)(3) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\n120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF #1-2017-5021M\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations.\n(3) Operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each\nof the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nEnterprise’s procedures for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part are inadequate. Specifically,\nEnterprise Miscellaneous Operating Procedures- Section 1305 Over Pressure Safety Devices and\nSection 1307 Breakout Tanks, dated 11/12/2013 (Procedure) failed to provide the correct API\nstandard on how to construct and modify aboveground breakout tanks, as per §195.428(c).\n§195.428(c) states:\nAboveground breakout tanks that are constructed or significantly altered according to API Std\n2510 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) after October 2, 2000, must have an overfill\nprotection system installed according to API Std 2510, section 7.1.2.\nBoth Section 1305 and 1307 of the Procedure states, “When the Company constructs or\nsignificantly modifies aboveground breakout tanks in accordance with API 2510 after\nOctober 2, 2000, an overfill protection system will be installed in accordance to API RP 2350…”\nThe Procedure referenced API RP 2350. The correct reference in API Std 2510 section 7.1.2.\n5. §195.402(c)(3) 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.\n(3) Operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each\nof the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nEnterprise’s procedures for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part are inadequate. Specifically,\nEnterprise’s Corrosion Prevention Program procedure - Rectifier Monitoring CP15, lacks adequate\nguidance per the requirements of §195.404(c)(3).\nPer §195.404(c)(3), a record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be\nmaintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise’s Corrosion Prevention Program\nprocedure - Rectifier Monitoring CP15, revised 07/09/15 (Procedure) and related records. The\nrectifier records, were recorded on, “EPROD Survey Report Bi-Monthly Rectifier – Bond” or\n“January 2013.”\nThe Procedure states:\n“…Rectifier readings shall be documented on the cathodic protection log sheet and a minimum of\none year’s records maintained at the rectifier unless data is gathered by remote monitoring\ndevices…”\n120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF #1-2017-5021M\n6. 1. The one-year documentation retention requirement in the Procedure conflicts with the\n2- year requirement in §195.404(c)(3).\n2. In additional follow-up communication with Enterprise, Enterprise stated, “…those\ninspections are recorded on the technician’s rectifier inspection log.”\nThe requirement in the Procedure to document rectifier readings on the cathodic protection\nlog sheet conflicts with the statements and records provided by Enterprise.\n§ 195.402(c)(3) 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.\n(3) Operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each\nof the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nEnterprise’s procedures for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part are inadequate. Specifically,\nEnterprise’s firefighting equipment procedure, Miscellaneous Operating Procedures Section 1306\ndated 11/12/2013 (Procedure), failed to include guidance on how they maintain adequate\nfirefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area as per § 195.430.\nEnterprise’s Procedure lacks detail such as:\n1. Documentation requirements\n2. Follow-up and documentation of remedial issues\n3. Record retention requirements\n4. Inspection frequency\n5. Personnel responsible for “Analysis” and “Approval”\n6. Criteria for documentation including “Completed” and “Satisfactory” guidelines\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance\nProceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. Failure to respond within 30 days of receipt\nof this Notice constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice, and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\n120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\nCPF #1-2017-5021M\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. maintain documentation\nof the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Robert Burrough, Acting\nDirector, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. In\ncorrespondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2017-5021M and, whenever\npossible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to\nrobert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper\ncopy to the Eastern Region Office.\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\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 6 of 6","truncated":false,"body_characters":34705}