# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

120185003_Closure Letter_07102020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Closure%20Letter_07102020.pdf

120185003_Closure Letter_07102020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Closure%20Letter_07102020_text.pdf

120185003_Final Order_04062020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Final%20Order_04062020.pdf

120185003_Final Order_04062020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Final%20Order_04062020_text.pdf

120185003_NOPV PCP PCO_01292018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01292018.pdf

120185003_NOPV PCP PCO_01292018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01292018_text.pdf

120185003_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

120185003_Operator Request for Hearing_04202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing_04202018.pdf

120185003_Operator Response and Request Hearing_04202018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185003/120185003_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20Hearing_04202018.pdf

120185003_Final Order_04062020_text.pdf

VIA EMAIL TO: ajteague@eprod.com, zlcraft@eprod.com, gbacon@eprod.com, and
robert.hogfoss@troutman.com
Mr. A. J. Teague
Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer
Enterprise Products Partners, LP
1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Dear Mr. Teague:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise). It withdraws seven of the 18 original
allegations of violation, reduces two allegations of violation to warning items, makes nine other
findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $286,600, and specifies actions that
need to be taken by Enterprise to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-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, Easter Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Zachary Craft, Counsel, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
Mr. Graham Bacon, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Enterprise
Products Operating, LLC
Mr. Robert E. Hogfoss, Counsel for Respondent, Troutman Sanders, LLP
VIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of )
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2018-5003
a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )
Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
From March 21, 2016, 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 on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), in Houston, Texas;
Greensburg, Pennsylvania; Dubois, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Ohio; Morgantown, Pennsylvania;
Sorrento, Louisiana; Monee, Illinois; Seymour, Illinois; and Little Rock, Arkansas. Respondent
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, which operates approximately
49,200 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquid, crude oil, refined products, and petrochemical
transmission and gathering pipelines throughout the United States.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated January 29, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Enterprise had committed 18 violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $703,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enterprise responded to the
Notice by letter dated April 20, 2018 (Response). Enterprise contested all of the allegations and
requested a hearing, but asked that it not be scheduled until the parties could informally meet in
an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues of the Notice. On July 31, 2018, Enterprise met with
PHMSA personnel in Trenton, New Jersey. The informal meeting resulted in a tentative
agreement, subject to PHMSA’s review of additional documentation to be provided by
Enterprise, of the issues raised in the Notice. Enterprise memorialized this tentative agreement
by letter to PHMSA dated August 28, 2018. Enterprise and PHMSA subsequently engaged in
1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP website, available at https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-
profile (last accessed February 26, 2020).



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 2
further discussions regarding the additional documentation provided by Enterprise and further
narrowed the issues. On May 23, 2019, Enterprise filed a “Joint Status Report” with the
PHMSA hearing official, stating that the parties had resolved 12 of the 18 issues presented in the
Notice and that it expected “to confirm shortly whether there will be a need for a hearing on the
remaining six items.” By letter dated July 22, 2019, to the Director, Enterprise withdrew its
request for a hearing, thereby authorizing the entry of this Final Order without further
proceedings (Amended Response).
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a), which states:
§ 195.310 Records.
(a) A record must be made at each pressure test required by this subpart,
and the record of the latest test must be retained as long as the facility tested
is in use.
The Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a) by failing to maintain a
record of each pressure test required by Subpart E, “Pressure Testing,” of Part 195. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to maintain hydrostatic test records for four breakout
tanks (PHMSA Unit 12232) in Little Rock, Arkansas, per the requirements of § 195.310(b).
Paragraph (b) of § 195.310 requires that an operator’s records include the following information:
pressure-recording charts; test-instrument calibration data; date and time of the test; minimum
test pressure; test medium; a description of the facility tested and the test apparatus; an
explanation of any pressure discontinuities, including test failures, that appear on the pressure-
recording charts; where elevation differences in the section under test exceed 100 feet (30
meters), a profile of the pipeline that shows the elevation and test sites over the entire length of
the test section; and the temperature of the test medium or pipe during the test period. None of
the records provided by Enterprise for the referenced units contained this information.
In its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its objection to this item. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.310(a) by failing
to maintain a record of each pressure test required by Subpart E.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 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



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 3
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.
The Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow for each
pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and
maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its computational pipeline monitoring (CPM)
manual for providing leak detection on four pipelines located in High Consequence Areas
(HCAs).
During the inspection of Enterprise’s written procedures in Houston, Texas, the PHMSA
inspector reviewed Enterprise’s CPM Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual),
dated 3/1/11. The O&M Manual stated: “…[A]ll regulated pipelines operated by Enterprise
Products control centers will be targeted for implementation of this baseline CPM system. If this
baseline leak detection application cannot be implemented on targeted line, then alternative
technologies will be evaluated ….” The PHMSA inspector noted that four Enterprise pipelines
located in HCAs lacked leak-detection systems:
1. Line ID P84, PODS ID 1357, total miles 0.945, HCA miles 0.047;
2. Line ID P79, PODS ID 6427, total miles 0.409, HCA miles 0.409;
3. Line ID P29B, PODS ID 7201936, total miles 0.53, HCA miles 0.53; and
4. Line ID P29A, PODS ID 7201937, total miles 0.53, HCA miles 0.53.
By email dated January 12, 2017, Enterprise acknowledged that it did not have records regarding
an evaluation of alternative leak-detection technologies for these pipelines. As a result, the
Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its own procedures for leak detection for each of
the four referenced pipelines.
In its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its objection to Item 2 with respect to two of the
four instances of violation, i.e., violations relevant to Line ID P79 and Line ID P29A. With
regard to the other two instances (Line ID P84 and Line ID P29B), Enterprise provided
information regarding the operational status of these two segments but that had not been
previously submitted to PHMSA. Upon review of this additional material, the Region concluded
that the lines were exempt from leak detection, as one was a low-stress line and the other was
idled, and therefore not subject to the company’s procedures for leak detection.2
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow a manual of written procedures for conducting normal
operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies with
respect to Line ID P79 and Line ID P27A.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states in
relevant part:
2 Region Recommendation, at 2 (on file with PHMSA).



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 4
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion that is exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore At least once every 3 calendar years,
but with intervals not exceeding 39
months. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to conduct an
inspection of each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s atmospheric corrosion records, titled “EPROD
Survey Report Atmospheric,” from 1/1/11 to 12/30/15, revealed that the inspection interval
exceeded 39 months in two instances for the following pipelines:
1. Segment Code: 03 Mundys to Duncansville with the following inspection dates:
6/18/11 and 9/25/14 – six days past due; and
2. Segment Code: 04 Duncansville to Jacks with the following inspection dates:
6/25/12 and 10/6/15 – 10 days past due.
In its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its objection to Item 5.3 Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing
to conduct an inspection of each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding
39 months.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its own written
procedures for performing inspections of overpressure-protection devices for inspection Unit
2464-Lou Tex in Sorrento, Louisiana (Unit 2464); Unit 3051-Greensburg in Greensburg,
Pennsylvania (Unit 3051); and Unit 3071-Dubois in Watkins Glen, New York (Unit 3071).
Enterprise’s O&M Miscellaneous Operating Procedures – Over Pressure Safety Devices,
Section 1305, dated 11/12/13 (Section 1305) stated: “In addition, the overpressure protection
system must be inspected and tested, either actual or simulated, at the required overpressure
protection set point…”
The records reviewed during the PHMSA inspection of Unit 2464, dated 2014 and 2015, showed
that the pressure-relief valve data did not indicate a “Set Pressure (PSI)” for nine pressure-relief
valves in 2014 and six in 2015. According to the Notice, Enterprise was unable to justify why
the data was missing from these records.
3 Amended Response, at 2 (on file with PHMSA).



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 5
In addition, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to adequately document the “set pressure
(PSI)” for relief valve settings on its 2015 and 2016 pressure safety valve (PSV) inspection
records on its Appalachia-to-Texas (ATEX) pipeline segments.
The Notice further alleged that records reviewed during the inspection of Unit 3051 did not
record a “set pressure (PSI)” for the pressure safety valves (PSVs). According to the Notice,
Enterprise was unaware of what value (PSI) at which these PSVs were tested, or at what pressure
values these PSVs were left. The PHMSA inspector noted two instances of violation in 2015
and two instances of violation in 2016 for this inspection unit.
Finally, during the inspection of Unit 3071, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Section 1305, which
stated in relevant part: “…[E]ach inspection and repair is documented on the appropriate form to
determine that it is functioning properly, in good mechanical/electrical condition, adequate from
the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used, set to
function at the correct pressure and properly installed and protected from foreign materials or
other conditions that might prevent proper operation.” Overpressure-protection records from
2014 through 2016 for the Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station and the “Maintenance Work
Order Detail Report” for the spring 2014 inspection interval were reviewed during the
inspection. According to the Notice, these records failed to contain specific information required
by Section 1305. Specifically, the following information was omitted: valve
mechanical/electrical condition; adequacy of capacity and reliability of operation; functionality
at the correct pressure; proper installation and protection from foreign materials or other
conditions that might prevent proper operation; and the set pressure of the device and set
pressure as found. The PHMSA inspector noted two instances of violation in 2015 and two
instances of violation in 2016 for this inspection unit.
In its Response, Enterprise contested this item and stated that it had records associated with Unit
3051 and a portion of the records associated with Unit 3071. In addition, Enterprise challenged
the item on the grounds that it should have been brought as an alleged violation of § 195.428(a),
and the violation therefore failed as a matter of law for a lack of specificity in the pleadings.
Finally, Enterprise argued that this item should have been combined with Item 7 of the Notice, as
there was significant overlap in the allegations, and should be converted to a Notice of
Amendment without any assessed penalty.
Subsequent to the inspection, Enterprise engaged in informal discussions with PHMSA on this
item and provided additional records for review. As a result of those discussions and a review of
the additional records, the Director agreed that six of the instances of alleged violation should be
withdrawn. Specifically, the Director reviewed the records associated with Units 3051 and 3071
and agreed that the alleged violations for those units should be withdrawn. Respondent
thereupon withdrew its challenge to this item and requested that the civil penalty associated with
this item be reduced to reflect 17, rather than 23, instances of violation. Because Enterprise
withdrew its challenge to this item, I need not decide the legal issues raised by Enterprise in its
Response.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 6
conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(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: . . .
(3) Operating, maintenance, and repairing the pipeline system in
accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this
part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to ensure that
its written procedures were adequate for operating, maintaining and repairing its pipeline system
in accordance with the requirements of Subparts F and H of Part 195. Specifically, it alleged that
Enterprise’s procedures failed to provide sufficient instructions on how its employees were to
conduct and document relief-valve inspections under § 195.428(a).
In its Amended Response, Enterprise withdrew its challenge to this item.4 Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by
failing to ensure that its written procedures were adequate for operating, maintaining and
repairing its pipeline system in accordance with the requirements of Subparts F and H of Part
195.
Item 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,
inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator,
or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning
properly, is in good working condition, and is adequate from the standpoint
of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to conduct an
inspection and test of each overpressure-protection device at intervals not to exceed 7½ months,
but at least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to
conduct an inspection and test of its highly volatile liquid (HVL) overpressure-protection valves
at its Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station during the following periods:
4 Id., at 3 (on file with PHMSA).



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 7
1. Device # MOS377 Thermal bypass valve 001 receiving barrel – 1st inspection 2014,
1st inspection 2015, and 2nd inspection 2015; and
2. Device # MOS377 Thermal bypass valve 002 launching barrel – 1st inspection 2014,
1st inspection 2015, and 2nd inspection 2015.
In its Response, Enterprise challenged two of the six instances of violation alleged in this Item.
Enterprise stated that it had produced certain records of inspection during the PHMSA inspection
and, subsequent to the inspection, had located other records associated with the 2015 inspections
at the Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station. As an exhibit to its Response, Enterprise
provided documentation of the 2015 inspections that PHMSA alleged had not occurred. In its
Amended Response, Enterprise stated that it did not contest the four allegations of violation
associated with the 2014 inspections.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.428(a) by failing to conduct an inspection and test of its HVL overpressure-protection
valves at its Moshannon, Pennsylvania pump station during the first and second inspections of
2014, for a total of four instances of violation.
Item 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) ….
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the period
specified: . . .
(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.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a
record of each inspection and test required under Subpart F of Part 195 for at least two years or
until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Enterprise failed to maintain its monthly breakout-tank records for breakout tank
DOT-T-1301 during March 2014, April 2014, and April 2015, per the requirements of API
Standard 653, Section 6.3.1.2, which is incorporated by reference into Subpart F under
§ 195.3(b)(19).
In its Response, Enterprise contested two of the three instances of alleged violation.
Specifically, Enterprise argued that the two alleged instances from 2014 should be withdrawn
because the regulation requires retention of records until the time of the next inspection or two
years, whichever is longer, and that two years had already passed as of the time of the PHMSA
inspection.
Enterprise is correct that it was required to retain the inspection records from 2014 for a period
of two years, and that such period had expired at the time of the PHMSA inspection. Enterprise
did not challenge the alleged violation for 2015 and has therefore waived its right to do so.



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 8
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a record of its April 2015 monthly breakout tank
inspection for breakout tank DOT-T-1301 for at least two years or until the next inspection or
test was performed, whichever is longer.
Item 17: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(d), which states:
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) ….
(d) Breakout tanks. After October 2, 2000, when you install a tank
bottom lining in an aboveground tank built to API Spec 12F (incorporated
by reference, see 195.3), API Std 620 (incorporated by reference, see
195.3), or API Std 650’s predecessor, Standard 12C, you must install the
lining according to API RP 652 (incorporated by reference, see 195.3).
However, you don’t need to comply with API RP 652 when installing any
tank in which you note for the corrosion control procedures established
under § 195.402(c)(3) why compliance with all or certain provisions of API
RP 652 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(d) by failing to install certain
breakout-tank linings in accordance with API RP 652, as required by the regulation.
Specifically, Enterprise failed to produce any records or documentation showing compliance
with the requirement for the following breakout tanks with a thin-film lining, namely, tank DOT-
T-1301, and tank DOT-T-1302.
In its Response, Enterprise contested the allegation of violation for both tanks. Enterprise stated
that it had fully complied with all requirements of API RP 652. In its Amended Response,
however, Enterprise withdrew its challenge to the allegation of violation with respect to tank
DOT-T-1301, but still challenged the allegation of violation with respect to tank DOT-T-1302.
In subsequent discussions between Enterprise and the Director, Enterprise provided PHMSA
with additional breakout tank-lining installation records for tank DOT-1-1302, which were not
provided at the time of the PHMSA inspection. The additional records provided evidence of
compliance with the regulation for tank DOT-1-1302, and the Director has recommended that the
allegation of violation for that tank be withdrawn.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.579(d) by failing to install certain breakout-tank linings for tank DOT-1-1302 in
accordance with API RP 652.
Item 18: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to 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. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to provide instructions to its
employees on how to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion pursuant to § 195.583(a), and to maintain



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 9
sufficient records of each atmospheric-corrosion inspection to demonstrate the adequacy of
corrosion-control measures pursuant to § 195.589(c).
The Notice stated that a PHMSA inspector had reviewed an Enterprise document, titled
“Enterprise’s Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection Procedure CPP-PCL-01, Revision date
12/3/15” (Procedure CPP-PCL-01), and had identified numerous deficiencies. According to the
Notice, 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
3.4.2 failed to contain sufficient information or instructions to ensure that Procedure CPP-PCL-
01 could be followed properly by Enterprise personnel to address operations and maintenance
activities on pipeline segments that were exposed to the atmosphere. The Notice further alleged
that the PHMSA inspector verified the deficiencies by reviewing records from 2013 and 2016
associated with breakout tanks 3013 and 3014 that were inconsistent with the requirements of the
procedure.
In its Amended Response, Enterprise stated that it did not object to the finding of violation
alleged in this Item, but noted that since the date of the PHMSA inspection, it had provided the
agency with updated procedures and revised records sufficient to satisfy the proposed
compliance terms.
Upon review of Enterprise’s revised procedures and records, I find that the allegations regarding
the 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
should be withdrawn. The remaining allegations of the Notice regarding this Item are not
challenged by Enterprise.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to 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. I further find that Enterprise has completed all proposed
compliance order actions set forth in the Notice for this Item and that no further action is
required.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its manual of
written procedures, CPM O&M Manual – Liquid Pipelines Operated by Houston OCC, dated
3/1/11, which required, inter alia, that “[p]ipelines will be ranked into three (3) tiers based upon
HCA impact and the Pipeline Integrity Risk model ‘consequence score.’”



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 10
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested copies of the company’s 2014, 2015, and
2016 CPM performance-evaluation records for the following inspection units:
1. IU 3051 – Greensburg o(Greensburg, Pennsylvania office);
2. IU 3071 – Dubois (Watkins Glen, New York office);
3. IU 4213 – Allegheny (Lebanon, Ohio office);
4. IU 3061 – Eagle (Morgantown, Pennsylvania Office);
5. IU 2464 – Lou Tex (Sorrento, Louisiana Office);
6. IU 18043 – TEPPCO Chicago (Monee, Illinois Office); and
7. IU 12232 – AR1 (Little Rock, Arkansas Office).
The records provided by Enterprise, however, did not show that the pipelines had been ranked
into the tiers as required by Enterprise’s procedure.
In its Response, Enterprise contested this Item on the grounds that the records provided showed
that the relevant CPM reviews had been completed. Enterprise further stated that the Notice had
alleged that the records provided to the PHMSA inspector had shown insufficient detail,
notwithstanding the fact that the documentation was deemed sufficient in prior PHMSA
inspections. Enterprise stated that it would have provided additional detail during or at any time
after the inspection before the Notice was issued had the inspector requested such additional
documentation.
In follow-up discussions with the Director, Enterprise provided CPM Performance Review
records for years 2014 through 2016 for the relevant inspection units, which had not previously
been provided to PHMSA inspectors. In its Amended Response, Enterprise stated that PHMSA
had reviewed the additional documentation provided and agreed to withdraw this item. The
record supports Enterprise’s statement in its Amended Response that PHMSA had reviewed the
additional documentation and that the Director had informally agreed to withdraw this item.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 3 be withdrawn.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its abnormal
operating condition (AOC) procedure for documenting AOC actions taken prior to a supervisory
close-out of the AOCs.
During the inspection of Unit 12232-AR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas, the PHMSA inspector noted
that one record for Enterprise’s McRae terminal contained no information for “AOC conditions
found” and “AOC actions taken.” Enterprise’s O&M Manual Abnormal Operation Procedures
Section 801, dated 11/12/13, required the retention of records that could be used to reconstruct
the sequence of events surrounding an abnormal operating condition. According to the Notice,
Enterprise was unable to provide any such additional records upon request from the PHMSA
inspector.



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 11
In its Response, Enterprise contested this allegation of violation and stated that the information
alleged to be missing from the records was contained in the notes section of the AOC work
order. Enterprise further stated that the information allegedly missing would have been brought
to the attention of the PHMSA inspector had the PIPES Act-mandated follow-up to the
inspection occurred. Enterprise noted that in this particular instance, the AOC was a temporary
loss of power that had been corrected and the alarms cleared. Enterprise subsequently provided
PHMSA with the work orders showing the missing information. In its Amended Response,
Enterprise stated that PHMSA had informally agreed to withdraw this Item based upon its review
of the additional information provided. The record supports Enterprise’s statement in its
Amended Response that the Director had reviewed the additional documentation and tentatively
agreed to withdraw this Item.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 4 be withdrawn.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its Pipeline
Hydrostatic Testing procedure for conducting pressure testing according to the requirements of
§ 195.305.
The Notice alleged that Enterprise’s Hydrostatic Test Report, Form 4507, with a Start of Test
Period dated 4/4/2013 for inspection Unit 2703-Seymour, in Seymour, Indiana, failed to include
the following information:
1. End time and date of “off” test with final pressure;
2. The name of the person responsible for making the test;
3. The Company Representative who recorded the test and date; and
4. The Test Director who approved the test and date.
In its Response, Enterprise contested this item and stated that the documentation alleged to be
missing was located either in a central office or online, and not at the field office where the
inspection occurred, and that nothing in the regulations or in its procedures required all of this
information to be stored in a single location. Enterprise stated that it had provided the missing
information to PHMSA prior to the Notice being issued and requested that the item be
withdrawn.
The additional information provided by Enterprise was reviewed by the Director, who confirmed
that it contained the four categories of information at issue in this item and requested that the
item be withdrawn.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 8 be withdrawn.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
for failing to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 12
emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its own procedure
for maintaining records for emergency-response training conducted in accordance with
§ 195.403(b)(1).
The Notice alleged that the records for Unit 3051 failed to contain certain information regarding
emergency-response training that had been conducted for two years at that facility, as required
by both § 195.403(b)(1) and Enterprise’s own written procedures.
In its Response, Enterprise contested this Item and stated that it believed this issue had been
resolved through the records produced during the PHMSA inspection and in communications
with PHMSA following the inspection. The company nevertheless provided the Form 905A
records that had been allegedly missing and requested that this Item be withdrawn.
The Director reviewed the additional documentation and concluded that it provided sufficient
evidence to demonstrate compliance with Enterprise’s procedures and requested that this Item be
withdrawn.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 9 be withdrawn.
Item 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) ….
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that
it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each
mainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, to
determine that it is functioning properly. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise’s
records for the mainline valves for 2013-2016 for inspection Unit 2464 and PHMSA Unit 12232-
AR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas, showed that in six instances, Enterprise failed to inspect mainline
valves twice per year, and in two instances failed to inspect mainline valves at intervals not
exceeding 7½ months.
In its Response, Enterprise contested this Item and stated that some of the valves identified in the
Notice were located on idled or abandoned lines, and that others were not mainline valves but
hand valves inspected on a different inspection frequency. Further, Enterprise provided records
demonstrating that the relevant mainline valves had been inspected in accordance with the
regulation. On these grounds, Enterprise requested that the Item be withdrawn.
Subsequent to the inspection, the Director reviewed the additional information provided by
Enterprise and determined that the Item should be withdrawn.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 12 be withdrawn.



CPF No. 1-2018-5003
Page 13
Item 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), as quoted above,
for failing to inspect and test each pressure-limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or
other item of pressure-control equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once
each calendar year to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,
and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in
which it is used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed in 11 instances to inspect
and test pressure-relief valves in 2015.
During the inspection of PHMSA Unit 12232-AR1 in Little Rock, Arkansas, the PHMSA
inspector reviewed Line P77 pressure-relief valve inspection records for 2013 and 2014.
Enterprise did not have records for P77 for 2015.
In its Response, Enterprise contested this Item, arguing that it was based on the same regulation
as Item 13 (§ 195.428), s
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 131768