{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220115012","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":"2011-12-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.116(f)(2), 195.202, 195.402(a), 195.410(a)(1), 195.410(a)(2), 195.412(a), 195.420(a), 195.428(a), 195.432(b), 195.505(b), 195.54(a), 195.563(a), 195.581(a), 195.583(a), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220115012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.116(f)(2),  195.202,  195.402(a),  195.410(a)(1),  195.410(a)(2),  195.412(a),  195.420(a),  195.428(a),  195.432(b),  195.505(b),  195.54(a),  195.563(a),  195.581(a),  195.583(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2011-12-12 and is reported as closed as of 2013-03-13. Proposed civil penalty: $170,900. Assessed civil penalty: $170,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220115012_closure letter_03132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_closure%20letter_03132013.pdf\n\n220115012_closure letter_03132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_closure%20letter_03132013_text.pdf\n\n220115012_Final Order_10222012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Final%20Order_10222012.pdf\n\n220115012_Final Order_10222012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Final%20Order_10222012_text.pdf\n\n220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011.pdf\n\n220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011_text.pdf\n\n220115012_Operator response_03282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Operator%20response_03282012.pdf\n\n220115012_Operator_Response_03282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Operator_Response_03282012.pdf\n\n220115012_closure letter_03132013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 13, 2013\nMr. Terry Hulbert\nGroup Senior Vice President, Operations\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 2-2011-5012\nDear Mr. Hulbert:\nOn October 22, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety issued to Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) a Final\nOrder (FO) in the above-referenced case. The FO included an assessed civil penalty and a\nCompliance Order (CO).\nThe PHMSA Southern Region received and reviewed the documents Enterprise provided with\nregards to the CO. Based on our review of this documentation and our confirmation that\nEnterprise has paid the civil penalty, we have determined that Enterprise has complied with\nthe terms of the FO and CO. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is\nnecessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above described order (CPF 2-2011-5012)\nand not to any other PHMSA pending cases. Also be advised that nothing herein states or\nimplies that the Enterprise pipeline system meets the requirements of the federal pipeline\nsafety regulations. The Enterprise pipeline system remains subject to inspection by PHMSA.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220115012_Final Order_10222012_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 22, 2012\nMr. Michael A. Creel\nPresident & CEO\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 2-2011-5012\nDear Mr. Creel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $170,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to\nacknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated\nJanuary 20, 2012. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Terry L. Hurlburt, Senior Vice President of Operations, Enterprise Products\nOperating, LLC, P. O. Box 4324, Houston, TX 77210-4324\nMr. Josh E. Kohler, Manager, Pipeline Compliance, Texas Eastern Products Pipeline\nCompany, LLC, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002-5227\nMr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTexas Eastern Products )\nPipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2011-5012\n)\na subsidiary of )\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 14 to October 22, 2010, and from April 25- 27, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives 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 Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC (TEPPCO or Respondent), in Texas,\nLouisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.\nFollowing a merger with subsidiaries of Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., on October 26, 2009,\nTEPPCO is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC\n(Enterprise).1 At the time of the inspection, TEPPCO’s system included 4,500 miles of pipeline\ncarrying refined petroleum products and highly volatile liquids.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 12, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Enterprise had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,\nassessing a civil penalty of $170,900 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warning\nRespondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\n1 TE Products Pipeline, LLC (TEPPCO) was the operator of record at the initiation of the inspection in June 2010.\nEffective August 17, 2010, TE Products Pipeline, LLC under operator identification number (OPID number) 19237\nwas legally changed to Enterprise Products Operating LLC, under OPID number of 31618. See also SEC Form 10-\nK, Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., March 1, 2010.\n\n\n\n2\nEnterprise responded to the Notice by phone on February 1, 2012, and by letter dated\nMarch 28, 2012 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but\ndescribed the steps taken to complete the terms of the proposed compliance order and paid the\nproposed civil penalty of $170,900, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 4: 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\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance (O&M).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to properly evaluate and accurately record\ntank conditions and deficiencies such as “failed inspection points”, as required by its O&M\nmanual procedure, Section 1307, Breakout Tanks (dated 02/10/10) and its monthly breakout tank\ninspection form (Tank Inspection Report). According to the Notice, PHMSA inspectors\nobserved and photographed the conditions and deficiencies on four breakout tanks and at several\nlocations along the pipeline system in September and October 2010, as more fully described in\nthe Notice.2 The conditions and deficiencies were not recorded in Enterprise’s monthly\ninspections records.\nIn its Response, Enterprise admitted that its breakout tank inspection documentation was\nincorrect for the locations referenced in the Notice.\n3 The company explained that it has\ndeveloped a new procedure, Standard STD 9503 Inspection and Testing of Atmospheric and\nLow-Pressure DOT Breakout Tanks (approved June 2011) and developed an associated checklist\nfor future DOT Breakout Tank Inspections. Enterprise also submitted its updated O&M\nprocedure, Section 1307, Breakout Tanks, which includes a reference to STD 9503.4\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (December 12, 2011), at 2 and Exhibit A.\n3 Response at 3.\n4 Id.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412(a) Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to adequately\ninspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) at intervals\nnot exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat tree canopies and vegetation covered four separate ROW locations and obscured the surface\nconditions from observation by aerial surveillance, which Enterprise used as its inspection\nmethod.5 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but explained that it had\nimplemented a ground patrol of areas where canopies do not allow for aerial patrol.6\nBased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to adequately inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to\nits pipeline rights-of-way.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the\nsafe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each\nvalve that is necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all\ntimes. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA inspectors observed Enterprise personnel\nattempt unsuccessfully to manually operate the Winzer Road block valve located at MP 51.03 on\nLine P1. Enterprise did not contest the allegation of violation but explained that it had replaced\nthe block valve at Winzer Road with an operable valve.7 Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of\nits pipeline systems in good working order.\n5 Violation Report at 7 and 44.\n6 Response at 8.\n7 Id.\n\n\n\n4\nItem 12: 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 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it\nis functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate\nfrom the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to conduct\nrequired inspections and tests of its highly volatile liquids (HVL) above ground breakout tank\noverfill protection system at the McRae Terminal at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise did not\ndemonstrate that the overfill protection system had been inspected and tested between the system\nstart-up test on August 31, 2009, and October 21, 2010, in accordance with § 195.428(d).8\nEnterprise did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\nthe overfill protection systems of its HVL above ground breakout tank within the required\nfrequency.\nItem 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto section 4 of API Standard 653[incorporated by reference, see § 195.3].\nHowever, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the\nbottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the\noperations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).9\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of certain in-service breakout tanks according to Section 6 of API Standard\n653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise did not conduct visual external inspections\n8 Violation Report at 17 and 46.\n9 Section 195.432(b) required operators to inspect certain tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653.\nHowever, Section 6 of API Standard 653, not Section 4, contained the relevant provisions relating to inspections of\nthe in-service breakout tanks. Section 195.432(b) was amended after the inspection. It presently reads: “Each\noperator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout\ntanks according to API Standard 653 . . . .” Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to\nTechnical Standards and Miscellaneous Edits, 75 Fed. Reg. 48,593, 48,607 (Aug. 11, 2010).\n\n\n\n5\nwithin the time intervals required by Section 6.3.2.1 of API Standard 653 for eighteen in-service\nbreakout tanks.10 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).\nItem 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(b), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) …\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified…\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged Enterprise employees who performed breakout tank inspections did not have adequate\nknowledge of covered task CT 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout Tanks. During its\ninvestigation, PHMSA found coating failures on chime ring, atmospheric corrosion on chime\nring, paint patches missing on lower portion of tank wall, roof MPT gauge entrance and nozzles\nhad no paint; bleed-through rust was on tank wall, which demonstrated that individuals\nperforming monthly breakout tank inspections were not qualified and lacked adequate\nknowledge of the covered task. In another instance, PHMSA found that the company’s\ninspection records showed that the breakout tank inspections had not been performed in\naccordance with Respondent’s covered task CT 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout\nTanks inspection procedures. Enterprise’s tank inspections records did not accurately reflect the\npaint condition of the McRae breakout Tank No. 1361 and its appurtenances.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).\nItem 17: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.581(a), which states:\n§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion\nand what coating material may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this\nsection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to adequately\nclean and coat portions of pipelines that were exposed to the atmosphere to protect against\natmospheric corrosion. Specifically, the Notice and Violation Report included examples of\nfacilities that were not properly coated, including above ground and exposed pipelines, above-\nground valves, and breakout tanks.11 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but\n10 Violation Report at 22 and 46.\n11 Violation Report at 32 and 46.\n\n\n\n6\nexplained that all atmospheric coating related issues described in the Notice have been\naddressed.\n12 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a).\nItem 18: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmosphere corrosion, as\nfollows:\nIf the pipeline is\nlocated:\nThen the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore..................... At least once every 3 calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nOffshore……………. At least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect a portion\nof the pipeline that was exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least\nonce every three calendar years, but at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that PHMSA inspectors observed and photographed an exposed pipe (creek span)\non Line P22 located upstream of MP 44.28 near Sunny Brook Road) that had deteriorated\ncoating and evidence of active corrosion.13 However, Enterprise did not list Line P22 on any of\nthe company’s exposed pipeline lists.\nEnterprise did not contest this allegation but explained that on September 28, 2010, the surfaces\nof the exposed sections had been recoated and new pipeline markers added to identify the\nexposures. Enterprise also stated that it had added the exposed section to its Atmospheric\nCorrosion database for inspection at the required intervals.\n14\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect, at the required intervals, each pipeline exposed to\nthe atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n12 Response at 12.\n13 Violation Report at 37 and 46.\n14 Response at 12.\n\n\n\n7\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $170,900 for the violations cited above.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures to properly\nevaluate and accurately record tank conditions and deficiencies such as “failed inspection\npoints”. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accurate and consistent\ndocuments are integral to conducting normal operations and maintenance, and responding to\nemergencies. Inconsistent records pose a significant threat to pipeline safety. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $19,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 10: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,400 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), for failing to adequately inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent\nto four separate pipeline ROW locations. Maintaining a system of inspection ensures reasonable\npromptness in the detection of all surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-\nways. Patrolling alerts the operator to any indication of pipeline leaks and the detection of\nexcavation activity that could affect the safe operation of the pipeline. Respondent did not\ncontest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $47,400 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).\nItem 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a), for failing to maintain the Winzer Road valve on Line P1 in good\nworking order at all times. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Properly\nfunctioning valves are essential to the safe operation of hazardous liquid pipeline systems, as\nthey limit the volume of product released in the event of a spill. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,500\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a).\n\n\n\n8\nItem 12: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test the HVL above ground breakout tank\noverfill protection system at the McRae Terminal between August 31, 2009 and\nOctober 21, 2010, and exceeding the required interval of 7½ months. Respondent did not contest\nthe allegation of violation. Overfill protection systems provide crucial protection against spills.\nRegular inspections and tests of such systems are key to ensuring that these systems operate\nproperly. In this case, Respondent failed to inspect and test the HVL above ground breakout\ntank overfill protection system. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,500 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nItem 14: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,400 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), for failing to inspect the physical integrity of 18 in-service atmospheric\nsteel above-ground breakout tanks in accordance with section 6 of API Standard 653 at the\nrequired intervals and for failing to properly identify or resolve certain conditions and\ndeficiencies during its monthly inspections. Respondent did not contest the allegation of\nviolation and did not object to the proposed civil penalty. Breakout tank inspections are\ndesigned to detect corrosion, settlement, and other threats to the integrity of those facilities.\nWhen inspections are not adequately performed or do not occur at the required intervals, these\nthreats are more likely to progress to the point of failure. The environmental consequences of\nsuch an event would be significant, particularly given the large quantity of hazardous liquids\nstored in the tanks. Moreover, the evidence shows that Respondent is fully culpable for failing to\nperform the required inspections. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,400 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).\nItem 17: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,900 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a), for failing to adequately clean and coat portions of pipelines that were\nexposed to the atmosphere at soil-to-air interfaces to protect against atmospheric corrosion in\nnumerous locations. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$17,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a).\nItem 18: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), for failing to inspect a portion of Enterprise Line P22 that was exposed\nto the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years,\nbut at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation.\nIt is important, as a general rule, for operators to conduct regular inspections for atmospheric\ncorrosion to assure PHMSA and the public that the operator is operating its pipeline safely. This\nis particularly true for pipelines operating in environmentally sensitive areas such as river\ncrossings. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a).\nIn summary, upon review of all the evidence and consideration of the assessment criteria for\neach of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $170,900, which has\nalready been remitted.\n\n\n\n9\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 15 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. 2. 3. With respect to violation of § 195.505(b) (Item 15), Respondent must revise its\nOperator Qualification(OQ) Plan consistent with Enterprise’s covered task 27.1\nRoutine Month Inspection of Breakout Tanks, including additional training to equip\npersonnel with the knowledge and skills necessary to identify coating failures on\nchime ring, atmospheric corrosion on the chime ring, active external corrosion on the\ntank, and areas without proper atmospheric coating protection on the tank wall and\nroof. The amended OQ Plan must be consistent with Enterprise’s procedures and\nensure that tank assessments or remedial measures are addressed, including:\n(a) Revise any written procedures or training materials related to monthly\ninspections of breakout tanks that are referenced in the revised OQ Plan.\n(b) Train and qualify all personnel who independently conduct monthly breakout tank\ninspections in accordance with revised OQ Plan, Enterprise procedures and\ntraining materials. Submit to the Director, Southern Region, a list of the\npersonnel and the date that each individual was trained and qualified on monthly\nbreakout tank inspections.\nWithin 30 days upon receipt of the Final Order, Enterprise must complete the\nCompliance Items above. Enterprise must submit documentation verifying\ncompliance to the Director, Southern Region, within 30 days of completing the\nactions for approval.\nEnterprise is requested (not mandated) to maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region. PHMSA requests that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation of plans,\nprocedures, studies, and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\n\n\n\n10\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 19 the Notice alleged probable violations\nof Part 195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore,\nthese are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to report to\nPHMSA an accident that occurred on January 25, 2010 within 30 days;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.116(f)(2) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to mark on the\nbody or on the nameplate of a tap valve the designation or the maximum working\npressure to which the valve (MOV 8105), installed in Line P107A, may be\nsubjected;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.202 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to construct the\npipeline system connecting the highly volatile liquid breakout tank outlets and the\nbooster pump suction header at its McRae Terminal in 2009, in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the\nrequirements of this part;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal O&M activities.\nSpecifically, Respondent’s failure to follow its procedures requiring Enterprise\npersonnel to perform periodic reviews of the work done by its personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and to take corrective actions where deficiencies were found.\nRespondent failed to demonstrate that its procedures had been followed at its\nfacilities in Seymour, Chicago, Illinois, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and El\nDorado, Texas;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for handling abnormal operations. Specifically, its\nfailure to follow its procedures requiring Enterprise personnel to perform periodic\nreviews of the work done by its personnel to verify it had determined the\neffectiveness of abnormal operation procedures and had taken corrective actions\nwhere deficiencies were found, in accordance with its O&M manual procedure in\nSection 801, Abnormal Operation Procedures (dated 10/31/2009).\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting maintenance activities that required\nEnterprise to conduct Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) tests for the presence of\n\n\n\n11\ncracking, in accordance with its Maintenance Report form (EPOLP Form #140)\nand its Pipeline Defect Evaluation and Repair Procedure, rev.02/01/05 (Repair\nProcedure). Specifically, Enterprise exposed a segment of Line P2 in July 2010,\nand recorded that severe corrosion pitting was found only at coating holidays and\nnot under disbonded coating. The report also indicated that the condition of the\ncoal tar enamel coating was partially disbonded with visible holidays or other\ndegradation. Enterprise personnel and records indicated MPI tested had not been\nconducted for Stress Corrosion Cracking;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to install a\nsufficient number of markers along its buried pipeline so that its location was\naccurately known;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nseveral pipeline markers over buried pipeline, Line P22, so that the operator’s\ncurrent contact information was legible;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) (Item 13) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly\ninspect the physical integrity of 24 in-service atmospheric steel above-ground\nbreakout tanks in accordance with Section 62 of API Standard 653 because the\ninspector was not an “authorized inspector” as defined in Section 3 of the\nstandard;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.563(a) (Item 16) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection required of this subpart. Specifically, Enterprise could\nnot provide records indicating that the internal surfaces of the removed pipes\nassociated with the 2008, Highway 167 and railroad crossing replacements of\nLines P2 and P62 in north Louisiana were inspected for evidence of corrosion as\nrequired by§ 195.579(c); and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 19) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nrecords for certain pipeline locations of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this\nsubpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control\nmeasures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Notice Items 1 and 2)\nhave occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event\nthat OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\n\n\n\n12\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order [CPF No. 2-2011-5012] are effective upon service\nin accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":35182}