ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Amendment

party submissionOfficial PDF120175021M_Operator Response to Notice_08022017.pdf#

120175021M_Closure Letter_02112019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY February 11, 2019 Mr. Graham Bacon Group SVP, Operations & EHS&T Enterprise Products Operating, LLC 1100 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 CPF 1-2017-5021M Dear Mr. Bacon: From March 21, 2016 – December 2, 2016, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) procedures, records and pipeline facilities in Houston, Texas; Greensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio; Morgantown, Pennsylvania; Sorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Indiana; and Little Rock, Arkansas. As a result of the inspection, Enterprise was issued a Notice of Amendment on May 4, 2017, which proposed amendment of its procedures. On May 11, 2017, Enterprise requested a time extension of 60 days to provide a total of 90 days to respond. PHMSA granted this request on May 15, 2017. On August 2, 2017 Enterprise submitted its response to the NOA. On October 15, 2018, PHMSA issued an Order Directing Amendment (ODA) for Enterprise to further amend and modify its procedures. On November 6, 2018, Enterprise requested a time extension to fully respond to the ODA. PHMSA granted this request on November 19, 2018. Enterprise submitted its amended procedures on January 15, 2018. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this ODA have been corrected. This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert Burrough Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOctober 15, 2018 Mr. A. J. Teague Director and Chief Executive Officer Enterprise Products Partners, LP 1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 1-2017-5021M Dear Mr. Teague: Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. It makes findings of inadequate procedures, withdraws one allegation, and requires that Enterprise amend certain portions of its operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Graham W. Bacon, Executive Vice President, Operations & Engineering, Enterprise Products Partners, LP CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 2U.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. 1-2017-5021M a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________________________) ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT From March 21 through December 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an inspection of the procedures, records and facilities of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), in Houston, Texas; Greensburg, PA; Dubois, PA; Lebanon, OH; Morgantown, PA; Sorrento, LA; Monee, IL; Seymour, IN; and Little Rock, AR. Enterprise is a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, that provides midstream energy services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, petrochemicals, and refined products throughout the United States. Enterprise’s NGL Pipelines & Services segment operates approximately 19,668 miles of pipeline, related product-storage facilities, and NGL fractionators. Respondent’s Crude Oil Pipelines & Services segment operates approximately 5,402 miles of crude-oil pipelines and storage terminals and markets crude oil.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 4, 2017, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice proposed finding that certain of Enterprise’s plans and procedures were inadequate to assure safe operation and proposed that Respondent amend its procedures for operations, maintenance and emergencies. After requesting and receiving an extension of time, Enterprise provided a written response dated August 2, 2017 (Response). The company contested several allegations and submitted amended procedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. 1 See https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/ngl-pipelines-services/ngl-pipelines. Current as of July 23, 2018.#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 1-2017-5021M Page 2 FINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states in relevant part: § 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards. Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. The Notice alleged that Respondent’s construction procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 in that they failed to specify inspection requirements. Specifically, Enterprise’s Project Coordination and Inspection Standard 8503 (Procedure 8503) did not provide guidance on how to conduct construction inspections in accordance with § 195.204. That section states: § 195.204. Inspection – general. Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or pipeline systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any operator personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An operator must not use operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator personnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits the operator from inspecting construction tasks with operator personnel who are involved in other construction tasks. In addition, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, Enterprise personnel acknowledged that this information was not included in the company’s inspection procedures. In its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and submitted an amended Procedure 8503. The Director reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is necessary. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states: § 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. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 1-2017-5021M Page 3 prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. The Notice alleged that Enterprise’s operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) because they failed to provide sufficient guidance on record retention and documentation in accordance with § 195.404(b)(2), which provides that operators must maintain, for at least three years, daily operating records that indicate any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures under § 195.402 apply. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s O&M Manual Section 801 – Abnormal Operation Procedures, dated 11/12/13, (Procedure 801), and its “Ten AOC (Abnormal Operating Conditions) Responder” records had conflicting record-retention periods from each other and from § 195.404(b)(2). In addition, the Notice alleged that Procedure 801 failed to define the location where abnormal operating conditions must be documented. In its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and submitted amended procedures which removed conflicting elements and harmonized them with the requirements of § 195.404(b)(2). The Director reviewed the amended procedures and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is necessary. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above, because they lacked sufficient detail on leak detection. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s CPM O&M Manual, dated 3/1/11 (Procedure CPM): (1) provided conflicting information for leak-detection thresholds; (2) failed to provide a proper link between the performance evaluation section of Procedure CPM and the company’s leak-detection strategy that was supposed to be found at Appendix A of Procedure CPM; (3) conflicted with statements and records otherwise provided by Enterprise; (4) failed to provide guidance on provisions or modifications to leak detection on high consequence area pipeline segments lacking Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems; and (5) failed to provide guidance on where CPM records were to be maintained. In its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and submitted amended procedures which, inter alia, corrected typographical errors and restructured Respondent’s leak-detection target thresholds. The Director reviewed the amended procedures and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately modified. Therefore, no further action is necessary. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 1-2017-5021M Page 4 (a) … (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’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) because they failed to include a proper reference to an American Petroleum Institute (API) standard that PHMSA had incorporated by reference into 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Miscellaneous Operating Procedures – Section 1305 (Over Pressure Safety Devices) and Section 1307 (Breakout Tanks), dated 11/12/13 (collectively, Procedures), failed to provide the correct API standard related to construction and modification of above-ground storage tanks as per § 195.428(c). The Procedures allegedly referenced API Recommended Practice (RP) 2350 when they should have referenced API Standard 2510, section 7.1.2 (incorporated by reference, see 49 C.F.R. § 195.3), when discussing overfill protection systems. In its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation and stated that it was submitting amended procedures which purported to remedy the conflict with § 195.428(c). The Director was unable to review the amended procedures because they were not attached to Enterprise’s response. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice. Enterprise is hereby ordered to amend its procedures to include a proper reference to an API standard, as required by § 195.428(c). Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), as quoted above, because they lacked sufficient guidance, as set forth in § 195.404(c)(3), for compliance with cathodic-protection record keeping. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Corrosion Prevention Program Procedure – Rectifier Monitoring CP15 (Procedure CP15), required only one year of record- retention instead of the two years required under § 195.404(c)(3), and follow-up communications provided further conflicting data about the retention and location of records. In its Response, Enterprise noted that Procedure CP15 was not intended to meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (including §§ 195.404(c)(3) and 195.589(c)), but was merely a tool to assist field operators in troubleshooting and identification of systemic problems. Instead, Respondent pointed to Section 1.3 of Procedure CP15, which specified a records- retention cycle of at least five years. The Director reviewed the Response and concurred with Enterprise that its current procedure is adequate. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, this Item is withdrawn. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s emergency procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), as quoted above, because they failed to provide adequate detail regarding procedures for maintaining firefighting equipment. Specifically, the Notice#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 1-2017-5021M Page 5 alleged that Enterprise’s firefighting-equipment procedure, Miscellaneous Operating Procedures Section 1306 (Procedure 1306), dated 11/12/2013, failed to include guidance on how Respondent was supposed to maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area, as per § 195.430. Additionally, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Procedure 1306 lacked details such as: 1) documentation requirements; 2) follow-up and documentation of remedial issues; 3) record-retention requirements; 4) inspection frequency; 5) personnel responsible for “analysis” and “approval” tasks; and 6) criteria for documentation, including “Completed” and “Satisfactory” guidelines. In its Response, Enterprise asserted that Procedure 1306 adequately met the requirements of § 195.430 because it referenced the company’s Safety Policies Manual (SPM), which provided more than sufficient detail. Having reviewed the SPM, I find that it is a nine-page policy document that “describes the fire protection equipment located throughout all facilities owned and operated by [Enterprise]” and includes “inspection, maintenance and training requirements for the operation of fire water systems, fixed dry chemical, carbon dioxide and Clean Agent extinguishing systems.”2 It outlines proper positioning, location and operation of fire protection throughout Enterprise’s system, but does not specifically address pump stations and breakout tanks, as referenced in § 195.430. I also note that Enterprise’s procedure lacked detail on document-retention requirements, personnel responsible for “Analysis” and “Approval,” and the criteria for documentation, including “Completed” and “Satisfactory” guidelines. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, because they fail to include critical information necessary to maintain public safety under 49 C.F.R § 190.206. Enterprise is hereby ordered to amend its Procedures to include sufficient detail concerning maintenance of firefighting equipment at pump stations and breakout tank areas as referenced in § 195.430. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Enterprise is ordered to revise its procedures as specified in Items 4 and 6 above. Respondent must submit the amended procedures to the Director, Eastern Region, within 30 days following receipt of this Order. 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 $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), 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. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including required amendment to procedures, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. 2 Response, at Exhibit 10.#

120175021M_Order Directing Amendment_10152018_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 1-2017-5021M Page 6 The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. October 15, 2018 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF AMENDMENT OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY May 4, 2017 Mr. Graham Bacon Group SVP, Operations & EHS&T Enterprise Products Operating, LLC 1100 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 CPF 1-2017-5021M Dear Mr. Bacon: From March 21, 2016 – December 2, 2016 a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) procedures, records and pipeline facilities in Houston, Texas; Greensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio; Morgantown, Pennsylvania; Sorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Indiana; and Little Rock, Arkansas. On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Enterprise’s plans or procedures, as described below: 1. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part. Enterprise’s construction procedures were inadequate in that they failed to specify inspection requirements. Specifically, Enterprise’s Project Coordination and Inspection Standard 8503 procedure (Procedure) was inadequate in that it does not provide guidance on how to conduct inspections in accordance with §195.204. §195.204 states: “Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or pipeline systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any operator personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An operator must not use operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator personnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits#

120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf, page 2CPF #1-2017-5021M the operator from inspecting construction tasks with operator personnel who are involved in other construction tasks.” During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise’s Procedure. The Procedure failed to include guidance on how to meet the requirements of §195.204. Enterprise personnel stated, “this statement is not included in Enterprise procedures and can be added in.” 2. §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. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. Enterprise’s procedures were inadequate in that they failed to provide sufficient guidance on record retention and documentation in accordance with §195.404(b)(2). §195.404(b) states: Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating records that indicate: (2) Any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures under §195.402 apply. During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise O&M Manual Section 801 – Abnormal Operation Procedures, dated 11/12/13 (Procedure), and the “Ten AOC [Abnormal Operating Conditions] Responder” records. 1. The Procedure states, “Written reports of abnormal operations will be maintained in the location DOT files for five (5) years.” 2. The “Ten AOC Responder” records state, “Retention 2 Full Years.” The record retention period in the Procedure conflicts with the record retention period on the AOC records, as well as the requirement of §195.404(b)(2). In addition, the Procedure failed to define where AOC’s must be documented. The Procedure states, “Control Room Operations Supervision and/or the location supervisor will retain any available records that may be used to reconstruct the sequence of events surrounding an abnormal operation as defined in the section.” 3. §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. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. 120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 2 of 6#

120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf, page 3CPF #1-2017-5021M Enterprise’s procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies were inadequate. Specifically, Enterprise’s procedures were inadequate in that they lack detail on leak detection. During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise’s CPM O&M Manual, dated 03/01/11 (Procedure). 1. Appendix A of the Procedure states in part: “Tier III target leak threshold will be 12% leak detection in 60 minutes. Tier III target leak threshold will be 5% leak detection in 60 minutes.” The Risk Level of Pipeline and Target Threshold table states in part: “Tier II - 5% leak detection. Tier III – 12% leak detection.” The Procedure provides conflicting information for leak detection thresholds. 2. 3. 4. 4. The Performance Evaluation section of the Procedure states: Annual analysis of existing pipeline CPM systems will be performed to determine if a pipeline system is meeting appropriate leak detection targets as defined in the company leak detection strategy (Appendix A) …” Appendix A is titled “Risk ranking and target threshold (60 min):” not company leak detection strategy as the reference to Appendix A. There is no link to performance evaluations data in the Appendix or elsewhere in Procedure. The CPM system selection section of the Procedure states: “Risk scores developed by the IMP process will be used to prioritize implementations.” The PHMSA inspector requested: a. Requested relevant documents on the annual leak detection review. Enterprise provided, “Leak Detection Budget Request” email correspondence. The email states, “…we have: Performed a high-risk/low-performing analysis of our current implementation…” b. Enterprise’s procedure on its CPM risk score. Enterprise stated, “The Tier system is not used, and the company currently uses the risk model to establish high risk approach, not a Tier approach.” The procedure conflicts with the statements and records provided by Enterprise. The procedure does not provide guidance on: a. Provisions or modifications to leak detection for lines without SCADA located in HCA areas. b. Where the CPM records are maintained/documented. § 195.402(c)(3) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of 120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 3 of 6#

120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf, page 4CPF #1-2017-5021M this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations. (3) Operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part. Enterprise’s procedures for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part are inadequate. Specifically, Enterprise Miscellaneous Operating Procedures- Section 1305 Over Pressure Safety Devices and Section 1307 Breakout Tanks, dated 11/12/2013 (Procedure) failed to provide the correct API standard on how to construct and modify aboveground breakout tanks, as per §195.428(c). §195.428(c) states: Aboveground breakout tanks that are constructed or significantly altered according to API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) after October 2, 2000, must have an overfill protection system installed according to API Std 2510, section 7.1.2. Both Section 1305 and 1307 of the Procedure states, “When the Company constructs or significantly modifies aboveground breakout tanks in accordance with API 2510 after October 2, 2000, an overfill protection system will be installed in accordance to API RP 2350…” The Procedure referenced API RP 2350. The correct reference in API Std 2510 section 7.1.2. 5. §195.402(c)(3) 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. (3) Operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part. Enterprise’s procedures for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part are inadequate. Specifically, Enterprise’s Corrosion Prevention Program procedure - Rectifier Monitoring CP15, lacks adequate guidance per the requirements of §195.404(c)(3). Per §195.404(c)(3), a record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Enterprise’s Corrosion Prevention Program procedure - Rectifier Monitoring CP15, revised 07/09/15 (Procedure) and related records. The rectifier records, were recorded on, “EPROD Survey Report Bi-Monthly Rectifier – Bond” or “January 2013.” The Procedure states: “…Rectifier readings shall be documented on the cathodic protection log sheet and a minimum of one year’s records maintained at the rectifier unless data is gathered by remote monitoring devices…” 120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 4 of 6#

120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf, page 5CPF #1-2017-5021M 6. 1. The one-year documentation retention requirement in the Procedure conflicts with the 2- year requirement in §195.404(c)(3). 2. In additional follow-up communication with Enterprise, Enterprise stated, “…those inspections are recorded on the technician’s rectifier inspection log.” The requirement in the Procedure to document rectifier readings on the cathodic protection log sheet conflicts with the statements and records provided by Enterprise. § 195.402(c)(3) 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. (3) Operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part. Enterprise’s procedures for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part are inadequate. Specifically, Enterprise’s firefighting equipment procedure, Miscellaneous Operating Procedures Section 1306 dated 11/12/2013 (Procedure), failed to include guidance on how they maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area as per § 195.430. Enterprise’s Procedure lacks detail such as: 1. Documentation requirements 2. Follow-up and documentation of remedial issues 3. Record retention requirements 4. Inspection frequency 5. Personnel responsible for “Analysis” and “Approval” 6. Criteria for documentation including “Completed” and “Satisfactory” guidelines Response to this Notice This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. 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 confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised procedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. Failure to respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice 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 an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or 120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 5 of 6#

120175021M_Notice of Amendment_05042017_text.pdf, page 6CPF #1-2017-5021M procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed. It is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Robert Burrough, Acting Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2017-5021M and, whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office. Additionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response letter pertains solely to one CPF case number. Sincerely, Robert Burrough Acting Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 120175021M_NOA_05042017 (152133) Page 6 of 6#