{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120185003","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":"2018-01-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.310, 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(3), 195.404(a)(3), 195.404(c)(3), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.432(b), 195.579(d), 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120185003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.310,  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(3),  195.404(a)(3),  195.404(c)(3),  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.432(b),  195.579(d),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2018-01-29 and is reported as closed as of 2020-07-10. Proposed civil penalty: $703,900. Assessed civil penalty: $286,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120185003_Closure Letter_07102020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Closure%20Letter_07102020.pdf\n\n120185003_Closure Letter_07102020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Closure%20Letter_07102020_text.pdf\n\n120185003_Final Order_04062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Final%20Order_04062020.pdf\n\n120185003_Final Order_04062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Final%20Order_04062020_text.pdf\n\n120185003_NOPV PCP PCO_01292018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01292018.pdf\n\n120185003_NOPV PCP PCO_01292018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01292018_text.pdf\n\n120185003_Operator Amended Written Response and Withdrawal of Hearing Request_07222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Operator%20Amended%20Written%20Response%20and%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_07222019.pdf\n\n120185003_Operator Request for Hearing_04202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing_04202018.pdf\n\n120185003_Operator Response and Request Hearing_04202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20Hearing_04202018.pdf\n\n120185003_Final Order_04062020_text.pdf\n\nVIA EMAIL TO: ajteague@eprod.com, zlcraft@eprod.com, gbacon@eprod.com, and\nrobert.hogfoss@troutman.com\nMr. A. J. Teague\nDirector and Co-Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 1-2018-5003\nDear Mr. Teague:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise). It withdraws seven of the 18 original\nallegations of violation, reduces two allegations of violation to warning items, makes nine other\nfindings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $286,600, and specifies actions that\nneed to be taken by Enterprise to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the\ndate of mailing, as provided under 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, Easter Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Zachary Craft, Counsel, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC\nMr. Graham Bacon, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Enterprise\nProducts Operating, LLC\nMr. Robert E. Hogfoss, Counsel for Respondent, Troutman Sanders, LLP\nVIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2018-5003\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom March 21, 2016, through December 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), in Houston, Texas;\nGreensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio; Morgantown, Pennsylvania;\nSorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Illinois; and Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondent\nis a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, which operates approximately\n49,200 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquid, crude oil, refined products, and petrochemical\ntransmission and gathering pipelines throughout the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated January 29, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Enterprise had committed 18 violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $703,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enterprise responded to the\nNotice by letter dated April 20, 2018 (Response). Enterprise contested all of the allegations and\nrequested a hearing, but asked that it not be scheduled until the parties could informally meet in\nan attempt to resolve or narrow the issues of the Notice. On July 31, 2018, Enterprise met with\nPHMSA personnel in Trenton, New Jersey. The informal meeting resulted in a tentative\nagreement, subject to PHMSA’s review of additional documentation to be provided by\nEnterprise, of the issues raised in the Notice. Enterprise memorialized this tentative agreement\nby letter to PHMSA dated August 28, 2018. Enterprise and PHMSA subsequently engaged in\n1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP website, available at https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-\nprofile (last accessed February 26, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 2\nfurther discussions regarding the additional documentation provided by Enterprise and further\nnarrowed the issues. On May 23, 2019, Enterprise filed a “Joint Status Report” with the\nPHMSA hearing official, stating that the parties had resolved 12 of the 18 issues presented in the\nNotice and that it expected “to confirm shortly whether there will be a need for a hearing on the\nremaining six items.” By letter dated July 22, 2019, to the Director, Enterprise withdrew its\nrequest for a hearing, thereby authorizing the entry of this Final Order without further\nproceedings (Amended Response).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a), which states:\n§ 195.310 Records.\n(a) A record must be made at each pressure test required by this subpart,\nand the record of the latest test must be retained as long as the facility tested\nis in use.\nThe Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each pressure test required by Subpart E, “Pressure Testing,” of Part 195. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to maintain hydrostatic test records for four breakout\ntanks (PHMSA Unit 12232) in Little Rock, Arkansas, per the requirements of § 195.310(b).\nParagraph (b) of § 195.310 requires that an operator’s records include the following information:\npressure-recording charts; test-instrument calibration data; date and time of the test; minimum\ntest pressure; test medium; a description of the facility tested and the test apparatus; an\nexplanation of any pressure discontinuities, including test failures, that appear on the pressure-\nrecording charts; where elevation differences in the section under test exceed 100 feet (30\nmeters), a profile of the pipeline that shows the elevation and test sites over the entire length of\nthe test section; and the temperature of the test medium or pipe during the test period. None of\nthe records provided by Enterprise for the referenced units contained this information.\nIn its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its objection to this item. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a) by failing\nto maintain a record of each pressure test required by Subpart E.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 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 and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\nThis manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 3\ninsure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial\noperations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept\nat locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow for each\npipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its computational pipeline monitoring (CPM)\nmanual for providing leak detection on four pipelines located in High Consequence Areas\n(HCAs).\nDuring the inspection of Enterprise’s written procedures in Houston, Texas, the PHMSA\ninspector reviewed Enterprise’s CPM Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual),\ndated 3/1/11. The O&M Manual stated: “…[A]ll regulated pipelines operated by Enterprise\nProducts control centers will be targeted for implementation of this baseline CPM system. If this\nbaseline leak detection application cannot be implemented on targeted line, then alternative\ntechnologies will be evaluated ….” The PHMSA inspector noted that four Enterprise pipelines\nlocated in HCAs lacked leak-detection systems:\n1. Line ID P84, PODS ID 1357, total miles 0.945, HCA miles 0.047;\n2. Line ID P79, PODS ID 6427, total miles 0.409, HCA miles 0.409;\n3. Line ID P29B, PODS ID 7201936, total miles 0.53, HCA miles 0.53; and\n4. Line ID P29A, PODS ID 7201937, total miles 0.53, HCA miles 0.53.\nBy email dated January 12, 2017, Enterprise acknowledged that it did not have records regarding\nan evaluation of alternative leak-detection technologies for these pipelines. As a result, the\nNotice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its own procedures for leak detection for each of\nthe four referenced pipelines.\nIn its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its objection to Item 2 with respect to two of the\nfour instances of violation, i.e., violations relevant to Line ID P79 and Line ID P29A. With\nregard to the other two instances (Line ID P84 and Line ID P29B), Enterprise provided\ninformation regarding the operational status of these two segments but that had not been\npreviously submitted to PHMSA. Upon review of this additional material, the Region concluded\nthat the lines were exempt from leak detection, as one was a low-stress line and the other was\nidled, and therefore not subject to the company’s procedures for leak detection.2\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow a manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies with\nrespect to Line ID P79 and Line ID P27A.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n2 Region Recommendation, at 2 (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 4\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to conduct an\ninspection of each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s atmospheric corrosion records, titled “EPROD\nSurvey Report Atmospheric,” from 1/1/11 to 12/30/15, revealed that the inspection interval\nexceeded 39 months in two instances for the following pipelines:\n1. Segment Code: 03 Mundys to Duncansville with the following inspection dates:\n6/18/11 and 9/25/14 – six days past due; and\n2. Segment Code: 04 Duncansville to Jacks with the following inspection dates:\n6/25/12 and 10/6/15 – 10 days past due.\nIn its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its objection to Item 5.3 Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing\nto conduct an inspection of each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding\n39 months.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its own written\nprocedures for performing inspections of overpressure-protection devices for inspection Unit\n2464-Lou Tex in Sorrento, Louisiana (Unit 2464); Unit 3051-Greensburg in Greensburg,\nPennsylvania (Unit 3051); and Unit 3071-Dubois in Watkins Glen, New York (Unit 3071).\nEnterprise’s O&M Miscellaneous Operating Procedures – Over Pressure Safety Devices,\nSection 1305, dated 11/12/13 (Section 1305) stated: “In addition, the overpressure protection\nsystem must be inspected and tested, either actual or simulated, at the required overpressure\nprotection set point…”\nThe records reviewed during the PHMSA inspection of Unit 2464, dated 2014 and 2015, showed\nthat the pressure-relief valve data did not indicate a “Set Pressure (PSI)” for nine pressure-relief\nvalves in 2014 and six in 2015. According to the Notice, Enterprise was unable to justify why\nthe data was missing from these records.\n3 Amended Response, at 2 (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 5\nIn addition, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to adequately document the “set pressure\n(PSI)” for relief valve settings on its 2015 and 2016 pressure safety valve (PSV) inspection\nrecords on its Appalachia-to-Texas (ATEX) pipeline segments.\nThe Notice further alleged that records reviewed during the inspection of Unit 3051 did not\nrecord a “set pressure (PSI)” for the pressure safety valves (PSVs). According to the Notice,\nEnterprise was unaware of what value (PSI) at which these PSVs were tested, or at what pressure\nvalues these PSVs were left. The PHMSA inspector noted two instances of violation in 2015\nand two instances of violation in 2016 for this inspection unit.\nFinally, during the inspection of Unit 3071, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Section 1305, which\nstated in relevant part: “…[E]ach inspection and repair is documented on the appropriate form to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, in good mechanical/electrical condition, adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used, set to\nfunction at the correct pressure and properly installed and protected from foreign materials or\nother conditions that might prevent proper operation.” Overpressure-protection records from\n2014 through 2016 for the Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station and the “Maintenance Work\nOrder Detail Report” for the spring 2014 inspection interval were reviewed during the\ninspection. According to the Notice, these records failed to contain specific information required\nby Section 1305. Specifically, the following information was omitted: valve\nmechanical/electrical condition; adequacy of capacity and reliability of operation; functionality\nat the correct pressure; proper installation and protection from foreign materials or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation; and the set pressure of the device and set\npressure as found. The PHMSA inspector noted two instances of violation in 2015 and two\ninstances of violation in 2016 for this inspection unit.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this item and stated that it had records associated with Unit\n3051 and a portion of the records associated with Unit 3071. In addition, Enterprise challenged\nthe item on the grounds that it should have been brought as an alleged violation of § 195.428(a),\nand the violation therefore failed as a matter of law for a lack of specificity in the pleadings.\nFinally, Enterprise argued that this item should have been combined with Item 7 of the Notice, as\nthere was significant overlap in the allegations, and should be converted to a Notice of\nAmendment without any assessed penalty.\nSubsequent to the inspection, Enterprise engaged in informal discussions with PHMSA on this\nitem and provided additional records for review. As a result of those discussions and a review of\nthe additional records, the Director agreed that six of the instances of alleged violation should be\nwithdrawn. Specifically, the Director reviewed the records associated with Units 3051 and 3071\nand agreed that the alleged violations for those units should be withdrawn. Respondent\nthereupon withdrew its challenge to this item and requested that the civil penalty associated with\nthis item be reduced to reflect 17, rather than 23, instances of violation. Because Enterprise\nwithdrew its challenge to this item, I need not decide the legal issues raised by Enterprise in its\nResponse.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 6\nconducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\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(3) Operating, maintenance, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this\npart.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to ensure that\nits written procedures were adequate for operating, maintaining and repairing its pipeline system\nin accordance with the requirements of Subparts F and H of Part 195. Specifically, it alleged that\nEnterprise’s procedures failed to provide sufficient instructions on how its employees were to\nconduct and document relief-valve inspections under § 195.428(a).\nIn its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its challenge to this item.4 Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by\nfailing to ensure that its written procedures were adequate for operating, maintaining and\nrepairing its pipeline system in accordance with the requirements of Subparts F and H of Part\n195.\nItem 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator,\nor other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning\nproperly, is in good working condition, and is adequate from the standpoint\nof capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to conduct an\ninspection and test of each overpressure-protection device at intervals not to exceed 7½ months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to\nconduct an inspection and test of its highly volatile liquid (HVL) overpressure-protection valves\nat its Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station during the following periods:\n4 Id., at 3 (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 7\n1. Device # MOS377 Thermal bypass valve 001 receiving barrel – 1st inspection 2014,\n1st inspection 2015, and 2nd inspection 2015; and\n2. Device # MOS377 Thermal bypass valve 002 launching barrel – 1st inspection 2014,\n1st inspection 2015, and 2nd inspection 2015.\nIn its Response, Enterprise challenged two of the six instances of violation alleged in this Item.\nEnterprise stated that it had produced certain records of inspection during the PHMSA inspection\nand, subsequent to the inspection, had located other records associated with the 2015 inspections\nat the Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station. As an exhibit to its Response, Enterprise\nprovided documentation of the 2015 inspections that PHMSA alleged had not occurred. In its\nAmended Response, Enterprise stated that it did not contest the four allegations of violation\nassociated with the 2014 inspections.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a) by failing to conduct an inspection and test of its HVL overpressure-protection\nvalves at its Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station during the first and second inspections of\n2014, for a total of four instances of violation.\nItem 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) ….\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the period\nspecified: . . .\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall\nbe maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection and test required under Subpart F of Part 195 for at least two years or\nuntil the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Enterprise failed to maintain its monthly breakout-tank records for breakout tank\nDOT-T-1301 during March 2014, April 2014, and April 2015, per the requirements of API\nStandard 653, Section 6.3.1.2, which is incorporated by reference into Subpart F under\n§ 195.3(b)(19).\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested two of the three instances of alleged violation.\nSpecifically, Enterprise argued that the two alleged instances from 2014 should be withdrawn\nbecause the regulation requires retention of records until the time of the next inspection or two\nyears, whichever is longer, and that two years had already passed as of the time of the PHMSA\ninspection.\nEnterprise is correct that it was required to retain the inspection records from 2014 for a period\nof two years, and that such period had expired at the time of the PHMSA inspection. Enterprise\ndid not challenge the alleged violation for 2015 and has therefore waived its right to do so.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 8\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a record of its April 2015 monthly breakout tank\ninspection for breakout tank DOT-T-1301 for at least two years or until the next inspection or\ntest was performed, whichever is longer.\nItem 17: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(d), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) ….\n(d) Breakout tanks. After October 2, 2000, when you install a tank\nbottom lining in an aboveground tank built to API Spec 12F (incorporated\nby reference, see 195.3), API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see\n195.3), or API Std 650’s predecessor, Standard 12C, you must install the\nlining according to API RP 652 (incorporated by reference, see 195.3).\nHowever, you don’t need to comply with API RP 652 when installing any\ntank in which you note for the corrosion control procedures established\nunder § 195.402(c)(3) why compliance with all or certain provisions of API\nRP 652 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(d) by failing to install certain\nbreakout-tank linings in accordance with API RP 652, as required by the regulation.\nSpecifically, Enterprise failed to produce any records or documentation showing compliance\nwith the requirement for the following breakout tanks with a thin-film lining, namely, tank DOT-\nT-1301, and tank DOT-T-1302.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested the allegation of violation for both tanks. Enterprise stated\nthat it had fully complied with all requirements of API RP 652. In its Amended Response,\nhowever, Enterprise withdrew its challenge to the allegation of violation with respect to tank\nDOT-T-1301, but still challenged the allegation of violation with respect to tank DOT-T-1302.\nIn subsequent discussions between Enterprise and the Director, Enterprise provided PHMSA\nwith additional breakout tank-lining installation records for tank DOT-1-1302, which were not\nprovided at the time of the PHMSA inspection. The additional records provided evidence of\ncompliance with the regulation for tank DOT-1-1302, and the Director has recommended that the\nallegation of violation for that tank be withdrawn.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.579(d) by failing to install certain breakout-tank linings for tank DOT-1-1302 in\naccordance with API RP 652.\nItem 18: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for\nconducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to provide instructions to its\nemployees on how to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion pursuant to § 195.583(a), and to maintain\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 9\nsufficient records of each atmospheric-corrosion inspection to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion-control measures pursuant to § 195.589(c).\nThe Notice stated that a PHMSA inspector had reviewed an Enterprise document, titled\n“Enterprise’s Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection Procedure CPP-PCL-01, Revision date\n12/3/15” (Procedure CPP-PCL-01), and had identified numerous deficiencies. According to the\nNotice, sections 1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4, 3.3.8, 3.3.8.1, 3.3.8.3, and\n3.4.2 failed to contain sufficient information or instructions to ensure that Procedure CPP-PCL-\n01 could be followed properly by Enterprise personnel to address operations and maintenance\nactivities on pipeline segments that were exposed to the atmosphere. The Notice further alleged\nthat the PHMSA inspector verified the deficiencies by reviewing records from 2013 and 2016\nassociated with breakout tanks 3013 and 3014 that were inconsistent with the requirements of the\nprocedure.\nIn its Amended Response, Enterprise stated that it did not object to the finding of violation\nalleged in this Item, but noted that since the date of the PHMSA inspection, it had provided the\nagency with updated procedures and revised records sufficient to satisfy the proposed\ncompliance terms.\nUpon review of Enterprise’s revised procedures and records, I find that the allegations regarding\nthe deficiencies in sections 1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.4, 3.3.8, 3.3.8.3, and 3.4.2 of Procedure CPP-PCL-01\nshould be withdrawn. The remaining allegations of the Notice regarding this Item are not\nchallenged by Enterprise.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written\nprocedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal\noperations and emergencies. I further find that Enterprise has completed all proposed\ncompliance order actions set forth in the Notice for this Item and that no further action is\nrequired.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its manual of\nwritten procedures, CPM O&M Manual – Liquid Pipelines Operated by Houston OCC, dated\n3/1/11, which required, inter alia, that “[p]ipelines will be ranked into three (3) tiers based upon\nHCA impact and the Pipeline Integrity Risk model ‘consequence score.’”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 10\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested copies of the company’s 2014, 2015, and\n2016 CPM performance-evaluation records for the following inspection units:\n1. IU 3051 – Greensburg o(Greensburg, Pennsylvania office);\n2. IU 3071 – Dubois (Watkins Glen, New York office);\n3. IU 4213 – Allegheny (Lebanon, Ohio office);\n4. IU 3061 – Eagle (Morgantown, Pennsylvania Office);\n5. IU 2464 – Lou Tex (Sorrento, Louisiana Office);\n6. IU 18043 – TEPPCO Chicago (Monee, Illinois Office); and\n7. IU 12232 – AR1 (Little Rock, Arkansas Office).\nThe records provided by Enterprise, however, did not show that the pipelines had been ranked\ninto the tiers as required by Enterprise’s procedure.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this Item on the grounds that the records provided showed\nthat the relevant CPM reviews had been completed. Enterprise further stated that the Notice had\nalleged that the records provided to the PHMSA inspector had shown insufficient detail,\nnotwithstanding the fact that the documentation was deemed sufficient in prior PHMSA\ninspections. Enterprise stated that it would have provided additional detail during or at any time\nafter the inspection before the Notice was issued had the inspector requested such additional\ndocumentation.\nIn follow-up discussions with the Director, Enterprise provided CPM Performance Review\nrecords for years 2014 through 2016 for the relevant inspection units, which had not previously\nbeen provided to PHMSA inspectors. In its Amended Response, Enterprise stated that PHMSA\nhad reviewed the additional documentation provided and agreed to withdraw this item. The\nrecord supports Enterprise’s statement in its Amended Response that PHMSA had reviewed the\nadditional documentation and that the Director had informally agreed to withdraw this item.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 3 be withdrawn.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its abnormal\noperating condition (AOC) procedure for documenting AOC actions taken prior to a supervisory\nclose-out of the AOCs.\nDuring the inspection of Unit 12232-AR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas, the PHMSA inspector noted\nthat one record for Enterprise’s McRae terminal contained no information for “AOC conditions\nfound” and “AOC actions taken.” Enterprise’s O&M Manual Abnormal Operation Procedures\nSection 801, dated 11/12/13, required the retention of records that could be used to reconstruct\nthe sequence of events surrounding an abnormal operating condition. According to the Notice,\nEnterprise was unable to provide any such additional records upon request from the PHMSA\ninspector.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 11\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this allegation of violation and stated that the information\nalleged to be missing from the records was contained in the notes section of the AOC work\norder. Enterprise further stated that the information allegedly missing would have been brought\nto the attention of the PHMSA inspector had the PIPES Act-mandated follow-up to the\ninspection occurred. Enterprise noted that in this particular instance, the AOC was a temporary\nloss of power that had been corrected and the alarms cleared. Enterprise subsequently provided\nPHMSA with the work orders showing the missing information. In its Amended Response,\nEnterprise stated that PHMSA had informally agreed to withdraw this Item based upon its review\nof the additional information provided. The record supports Enterprise’s statement in its\nAmended Response that the Director had reviewed the additional documentation and tentatively\nagreed to withdraw this Item.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 4 be withdrawn.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its Pipeline\nHydrostatic Testing procedure for conducting pressure testing according to the requirements of\n§ 195.305.\nThe Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Hydrostatic Test Report, Form 4507, with a Start of Test\nPeriod dated 4/4/2013 for inspection Unit 2703-Seymour, in Seymour, Indiana, failed to include\nthe following information:\n1. End time and date of “off” test with final pressure;\n2. The name of the person responsible for making the test;\n3. The Company Representative who recorded the test and date; and\n4. The Test Director who approved the test and date.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this item and stated that the documentation alleged to be\nmissing was located either in a central office or online, and not at the field office where the\ninspection occurred, and that nothing in the regulations or in its procedures required all of this\ninformation to be stored in a single location. Enterprise stated that it had provided the missing\ninformation to PHMSA prior to the Notice being issued and requested that the item be\nwithdrawn.\nThe additional information provided by Enterprise was reviewed by the Director, who confirmed\nthat it contained the four categories of information at issue in this item and requested that the\nitem be withdrawn.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 8 be withdrawn.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nfor failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 12\nemergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its own procedure\nfor maintaining records for emergency-response training conducted in accordance with\n§ 195.403(b)(1).\nThe Notice alleged that the records for Unit 3051 failed to contain certain information regarding\nemergency-response training that had been conducted for two years at that facility, as required\nby both § 195.403(b)(1) and Enterprise’s own written procedures.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this Item and stated that it believed this issue had been\nresolved through the records produced during the PHMSA inspection and in communications\nwith PHMSA following the inspection. The company nevertheless provided the Form 905A\nrecords that had been allegedly missing and requested that this Item be withdrawn.\nThe Director reviewed the additional documentation and concluded that it provided sufficient\nevidence to demonstrate compliance with Enterprise’s procedures and requested that this Item be\nwithdrawn.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 9 be withdrawn.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\nmainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s\nrecords for the mainline valves for 2013-2016 for inspection Unit 2464 and PHMSA Unit 12232-\nAR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas, showed that in six instances, Enterprise failed to inspect mainline\nvalves twice per year, and in two instances failed to inspect mainline valves at intervals not\nexceeding 7½ months.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this Item and stated that some of the valves identified in the\nNotice were located on idled or abandoned lines, and that others were not mainline valves but\nhand valves inspected on a different inspection frequency. Further, Enterprise provided records\ndemonstrating that the relevant mainline valves had been inspected in accordance with the\nregulation. On these grounds, Enterprise requested that the Item be withdrawn.\nSubsequent to the inspection, the Director reviewed the additional information provided by\nEnterprise and determined that the Item should be withdrawn.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 12 be withdrawn.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5003\nPage 13\nItem 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), as quoted above,\nfor failing to inspect and test each pressure-limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or\nother item of pressure-control equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,\nand is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed in 11 instances to inspect\nand test pressure-relief valves in 2015.\nDuring the inspection of PHMSA Unit 12232-AR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas, the PHMSA\ninspector reviewed Line P77 pressure-relief valve inspection records for 2013 and 2014.\nEnterprise did not have records for P77 for 2015.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested this Item, arguing that it was based on the same regulation\nas Item 13 (§ 195.428), s","truncated":true,"body_characters":131768}