# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

220115012_closure letter_03132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_closure%20letter_03132013.pdf

220115012_closure letter_03132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_closure%20letter_03132013_text.pdf

220115012_Final Order_10222012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Final%20Order_10222012.pdf

220115012_Final Order_10222012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Final%20Order_10222012_text.pdf

220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011.pdf

220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12122011_text.pdf

220115012_Operator response_03282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Operator%20response_03282012.pdf

220115012_Operator_Response_03282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115012/220115012_Operator_Response_03282012.pdf

220115012_closure letter_03132013_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
March 13, 2013
Mr. Terry Hulbert
Group Senior Vice President, Operations
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 2-2011-5012
Dear Mr. Hulbert:
On October 22, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety issued to Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise) a Final
Order (FO) in the above-referenced case. The FO included an assessed civil penalty and a
Compliance Order (CO).
The PHMSA Southern Region received and reviewed the documents Enterprise provided with
regards to the CO. Based on our review of this documentation and our confirmation that
Enterprise has paid the civil penalty, we have determined that Enterprise has complied with
the terms of the FO and CO. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is
necessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.
Please be advised that this letter refers only to the above described order (CPF 2-2011-5012)
and not to any other PHMSA pending cases. Also be advised that nothing herein states or
implies that the Enterprise pipeline system meets the requirements of the federal pipeline
safety regulations. The Enterprise pipeline system remains subject to inspection by PHMSA.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Lemoi
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region

220115012_Final Order_10222012_text.pdf

OCTOBER 22, 2012
Mr. Michael A. Creel
President & CEO
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 2-2011-5012
Dear Mr. Creel:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $170,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to
acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated
January 20, 2012. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined
by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Terry L. Hurlburt, Senior Vice President of Operations, Enterprise Products
Operating, LLC, P. O. Box 4324, Houston, TX 77210-4324
Mr. Josh E. Kohler, Manager, Pipeline Compliance, Texas Eastern Products Pipeline
Company, LLC, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002-5227
Mr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 )
)
Texas Eastern Products )
Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2011-5012
)
a subsidiary of )
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From June 14 to October 22, 2010, and from April 25- 27, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives 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 Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC (TEPPCO or Respondent), in Texas,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Following a merger with subsidiaries of Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., on October 26, 2009,
TEPPCO is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
(Enterprise).1 At the time of the inspection, TEPPCO’s system included 4,500 miles of pipeline
carrying refined petroleum products and highly volatile liquids.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated December 12, 2011, 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 various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,
assessing a civil penalty of $170,900 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that
Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warning
Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.
1 TE Products Pipeline, LLC (TEPPCO) was the operator of record at the initiation of the inspection in June 2010.
Effective August 17, 2010, TE Products Pipeline, LLC under operator identification number (OPID number) 19237
was legally changed to Enterprise Products Operating LLC, under OPID number of 31618. See also SEC Form 10-
K, Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., March 1, 2010.



2
Enterprise responded to the Notice by phone on February 1, 2012, and by letter dated
March 28, 2012 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but
described the steps taken to complete the terms of the proposed compliance order and paid the
proposed civil penalty of $170,900, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Respondent did not
request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 195, as follows:
Item 4: 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.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance (O&M).
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to properly evaluate and accurately record
tank conditions and deficiencies such as “failed inspection points”, as required by its O&M
manual procedure, Section 1307, Breakout Tanks (dated 02/10/10) and its monthly breakout tank
inspection form (Tank Inspection Report). According to the Notice, PHMSA inspectors
observed and photographed the conditions and deficiencies on four breakout tanks and at several
locations along the pipeline system in September and October 2010, as more fully described in
the Notice.2 The conditions and deficiencies were not recorded in Enterprise’s monthly
inspections records.
In its Response, Enterprise admitted that its breakout tank inspection documentation was
incorrect for the locations referenced in the Notice.
3 The company explained that it has
developed a new procedure, Standard STD 9503 Inspection and Testing of Atmospheric and
Low-Pressure DOT Breakout Tanks (approved June 2011) and developed an associated checklist
for future DOT Breakout Tank Inspections. Enterprise also submitted its updated O&M
procedure, Section 1307, Breakout Tanks, which includes a reference to STD 9503.4
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (December 12, 2011), at 2 and Exhibit A.
3 Response at 3.
4 Id.



3
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance.
Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a), which states:
§ 195.412(a) Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable
waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least
26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent
to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,
driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to adequately
inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) at intervals
not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that tree canopies and vegetation covered four separate ROW locations and obscured the surface
conditions from observation by aerial surveillance, which Enterprise used as its inspection
method.5 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but explained that it had
implemented a ground patrol of areas where canopies do not allow for aerial patrol.6
Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to adequately inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to
its pipeline rights-of-way.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the
safe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each
valve that is necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all
times. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA inspectors observed Enterprise personnel
attempt unsuccessfully to manually operate the Winzer Road block valve located at MP 51.03 on
Line P1. Enterprise did not contest the allegation of violation but explained that it had replaced
the block valve at Winzer Road with an operable valve.7 Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of
its pipeline systems in good working order.
5 Violation Report at 7 and 44.
6 Response at 8.
7 Id.



4
Item 12: 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 7 ½ 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 mechanical 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
required inspections and tests of its highly volatile liquids (HVL) above ground breakout tank
overfill protection system at the McRae Terminal at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise did not
demonstrate that the overfill protection system had been inspected and tested between the system
start-up test on August 31, 2009, and October 21, 2010, in accordance with § 195.428(d).8
Enterprise did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test
the overfill protection systems of its HVL above ground breakout tank within the required
frequency.
Item 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according
to section 4 of API Standard 653[incorporated by reference, see § 195.3].
However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the
bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the
operations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).9
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of certain in-service breakout tanks according to Section 6 of API Standard
653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise did not conduct visual external inspections
8 Violation Report at 17 and 46.
9 Section 195.432(b) required operators to inspect certain tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653.
However, Section 6 of API Standard 653, not Section 4, contained the relevant provisions relating to inspections of
the in-service breakout tanks. Section 195.432(b) was amended after the inspection. It presently reads: “Each
operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout
tanks according to API Standard 653 . . . .” Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to
Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Edits, 75 Fed. Reg. 48,593, 48,607 (Aug. 11, 2010).



5
within the time intervals required by Section 6.3.2.1 of API Standard 653 for eighteen in-service
breakout tanks.10 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based
upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).
Item 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(b), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) …
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered
tasks are qualified…
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through
evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice
alleged Enterprise employees who performed breakout tank inspections did not have adequate
knowledge of covered task CT 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout Tanks. During its
investigation, PHMSA found coating failures on chime ring, atmospheric corrosion on chime
ring, paint patches missing on lower portion of tank wall, roof MPT gauge entrance and nozzles
had no paint; bleed-through rust was on tank wall, which demonstrated that individuals
performing monthly breakout tank inspections were not qualified and lacked adequate
knowledge of the covered task. In another instance, PHMSA found that the company’s
inspection records showed that the breakout tank inspections had not been performed in
accordance with Respondent’s covered task CT 27.1 Routine Monthly Inspection of Breakout
Tanks inspection procedures. Enterprise’s tank inspections records did not accurately reflect the
paint condition of the McRae breakout Tank No. 1361 and its appurtenances.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).
Item 17: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.581(a), which states:
§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion
and what coating material may I use?
(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this
section.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a) by failing to adequately
clean and coat portions of pipelines that were exposed to the atmosphere to protect against
atmospheric corrosion. Specifically, the Notice and Violation Report included examples of
facilities that were not properly coated, including above ground and exposed pipelines, above-
ground valves, and breakout tanks.11 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but
10 Violation Report at 22 and 46.
11 Violation Report at 32 and 46.



6
explained that all atmospheric coating related issues described in the Notice have been
addressed.
12 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a).
Item 18: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmosphere 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.
Offshore……………. At least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months.
The Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect a portion
of the pipeline that was exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least
once every three calendar years, but at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that PHMSA inspectors observed and photographed an exposed pipe (creek span)
on Line P22 located upstream of MP 44.28 near Sunny Brook Road) that had deteriorated
coating and evidence of active corrosion.13 However, Enterprise did not list Line P22 on any of
the company’s exposed pipeline lists.
Enterprise did not contest this allegation but explained that on September 28, 2010, the surfaces
of the exposed sections had been recoated and new pipeline markers added to identify the
exposures. Enterprise also stated that it had added the exposed section to its Atmospheric
Corrosion database for inspection at the required intervals.
14
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect, at the required intervals, each pipeline exposed to
the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
12 Response at 12.
13 Violation Report at 37 and 46.
14 Response at 12.



7
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $170,900 for the violations cited above.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures to properly
evaluate and accurately record tank conditions and deficiencies such as “failed inspection
points”. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accurate and consistent
documents are integral to conducting normal operations and maintenance, and responding to
emergencies. Inconsistent records pose a significant threat to pipeline safety. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $19,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).
Item 10: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,400 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), for failing to adequately inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent
to four separate pipeline ROW locations. Maintaining a system of inspection ensures reasonable
promptness in the detection of all surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-
ways. Patrolling alerts the operator to any indication of pipeline leaks and the detection of
excavation activity that could affect the safe operation of the pipeline. Respondent did not
contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $47,400 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).
Item 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a), for failing to maintain the Winzer Road valve on Line P1 in good
working order at all times. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Properly
functioning valves are essential to the safe operation of hazardous liquid pipeline systems, as
they limit the volume of product released in the event of a spill. Accordingly, having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,500
for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a).



8
Item 12: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test the HVL above ground breakout tank
overfill protection system at the McRae Terminal between August 31, 2009 and
October 21, 2010, and exceeding the required interval of 7½ months. Respondent did not contest
the allegation of violation. Overfill protection systems provide crucial protection against spills.
Regular inspections and tests of such systems are key to ensuring that these systems operate
properly. In this case, Respondent failed to inspect and test the HVL above ground breakout
tank overfill protection system. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,500 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).
Item 14: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,400 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), for failing to inspect the physical integrity of 18 in-service atmospheric
steel above-ground breakout tanks in accordance with section 6 of API Standard 653 at the
required intervals and for failing to properly identify or resolve certain conditions and
deficiencies during its monthly inspections. Respondent did not contest the allegation of
violation and did not object to the proposed civil penalty. Breakout tank inspections are
designed to detect corrosion, settlement, and other threats to the integrity of those facilities.
When inspections are not adequately performed or do not occur at the required intervals, these
threats are more likely to progress to the point of failure. The environmental consequences of
such an event would be significant, particularly given the large quantity of hazardous liquids
stored in the tanks. Moreover, the evidence shows that Respondent is fully culpable for failing to
perform the required inspections. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,400 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).
Item 17: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,900 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a), for failing to adequately clean and coat portions of pipelines that were
exposed to the atmosphere at soil-to-air interfaces to protect against atmospheric corrosion in
numerous locations. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$17,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a).
Item 18: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,200 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), for failing to inspect a portion of Enterprise Line P22 that was exposed
to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years,
but at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation.
It is important, as a general rule, for operators to conduct regular inspections for atmospheric
corrosion to assure PHMSA and the public that the operator is operating its pipeline safely. This
is particularly true for pipelines operating in environmentally sensitive areas such as river
crossings. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a).
In summary, upon review of all the evidence and consideration of the assessment criteria for
each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $170,900, which has
already been remitted.



9
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 15 in the Notice for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the
authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the
following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its
operations:
1. 2. 3. With respect to violation of § 195.505(b) (Item 15), Respondent must revise its
Operator Qualification(OQ) Plan consistent with Enterprise’s covered task 27.1
Routine Month Inspection of Breakout Tanks, including additional training to equip
personnel with the knowledge and skills necessary to identify coating failures on
chime ring, atmospheric corrosion on the chime ring, active external corrosion on the
tank, and areas without proper atmospheric coating protection on the tank wall and
roof. The amended OQ Plan must be consistent with Enterprise’s procedures and
ensure that tank assessments or remedial measures are addressed, including:
(a) Revise any written procedures or training materials related to monthly
inspections of breakout tanks that are referenced in the revised OQ Plan.
(b) Train and qualify all personnel who independently conduct monthly breakout tank
inspections in accordance with revised OQ Plan, Enterprise procedures and
training materials. Submit to the Director, Southern Region, a list of the
personnel and the date that each individual was trained and qualified on monthly
breakout tank inspections.
Within 30 days upon receipt of the Final Order, Enterprise must complete the
Compliance Items above. Enterprise must submit documentation verifying
compliance to the Director, Southern Region, within 30 days of completing the
actions for approval.
Enterprise is requested (not mandated) to maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region. PHMSA requests that these costs
be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation of plans,
procedures, studies, and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,
additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.



10
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 19 the Notice alleged probable violations
of Part 195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore,
these are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.54(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to report to
PHMSA an accident that occurred on January 25, 2010 within 30 days;
49 C.F.R. § 195.116(f)(2) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to mark on the
body or on the nameplate of a tap valve the designation or the maximum working
pressure to which the valve (MOV 8105), installed in Line P107A, may be
subjected;
49 C.F.R. § 195.202 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to construct the
pipeline system connecting the highly volatile liquid breakout tank outlets and the
booster pump suction header at its McRae Terminal in 2009, in accordance with
comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the
requirements of this part;
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
manual of written procedures for conducting normal O&M activities.
Specifically, Respondent’s failure to follow its procedures requiring Enterprise
personnel to perform periodic reviews of the work done by its personnel to
determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and
maintenance and to take corrective actions where deficiencies were found.
Respondent failed to demonstrate that its procedures had been followed at its
facilities in Seymour, Chicago, Illinois, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and El
Dorado, Texas;
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
manual of written procedures for handling abnormal operations. Specifically, its
failure to follow its procedures requiring Enterprise personnel to perform periodic
reviews of the work done by its personnel to verify it had determined the
effectiveness of abnormal operation procedures and had taken corrective actions
where deficiencies were found, in accordance with its O&M manual procedure in
Section 801, Abnormal Operation Procedures (dated 10/31/2009).
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
manual of written procedures for conducting maintenance activities that required
Enterprise to conduct Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) tests for the presence of



11
cracking, in accordance with its Maintenance Report form (EPOLP Form #140)
and its Pipeline Defect Evaluation and Repair Procedure, rev.02/01/05 (Repair
Procedure). Specifically, Enterprise exposed a segment of Line P2 in July 2010,
and recorded that severe corrosion pitting was found only at coating holidays and
not under disbonded coating. The report also indicated that the condition of the
coal tar enamel coating was partially disbonded with visible holidays or other
degradation. Enterprise personnel and records indicated MPI tested had not been
conducted for Stress Corrosion Cracking;
49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to install a
sufficient number of markers along its buried pipeline so that its location was
accurately known;
49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
several pipeline markers over buried pipeline, Line P22, so that the operator’s
current contact information was legible;
49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) (Item 13) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly
inspect the physical integrity of 24 in-service atmospheric steel above-ground
breakout tanks in accordance with Section 62 of API Standard 653 because the
inspector was not an “authorized inspector” as defined in Section 3 of the
standard;
49 C.F.R. § 195.563(a) (Item 16) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a
record of each inspection required of this subpart. Specifically, Enterprise could
not provide records indicating that the internal surfaces of the removed pipes
associated with the 2008, Highway 167 and railroad crossing replacements of
Lines P2 and P62 in north Louisiana were inspected for evidence of corrosion as
required by§ 195.579(c); and
49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 19) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
records for certain pipeline locations of each analysis, check, demonstration,
examination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this
subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control
measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.
Respondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to
49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Notice Items 1 and 2)
have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event
that OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.



12
The terms and conditions of this Final Order [CPF No. 2-2011-5012] are effective upon service
in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 35182