# TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320055018
- **title:** TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2005-04-25
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.403(a), 195.403(c), 195.422(a), 195.54(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320055018.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320055018.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320055018
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320055018
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.403(a),  195.403(c),  195.422(a),  195.54(a). The case was opened on 2005-04-25 and is reported as closed as of 2010-10-12. Proposed civil penalty: $350,000. Assessed civil penalty: $325,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320055018_Decision on Petition of Reconsideration _10122010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055018/320055018_Decision%20on%20Petition%20of%20Reconsideration%20_10122010.pdf

320055018_Decision on Petition of Reconsideration _10122010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055018/320055018_Decision%20on%20Petition%20of%20Reconsideration%20_10122010_text.pdf

320055018_FnalOrder _02272009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055018/320055018_FnalOrder%20_02272009.pdf

320055018_FnalOrder _02272009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055018/320055018_FnalOrder%20_02272009_text.pdf

320055018_Decision on Petition of Reconsideration _10122010_text.pdf

OCT 12 2010
Mr. Michael A. Creel
President and Chief Executive Officer
Enterprise Products Partners, LP
1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 3-2005-5018
Dear Mr. Creel:
Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by TE Products
Pipeline Company, LLC, (TEPPCO) now part of Enterprise Products Partners, in the above-
referenced case. The Decision grants TEPPCO’s petition in part, denies it in part, and reduces
the total civil penalty to $325,000. The terms of the Final Order are now in effect, including the
assessment of the reduced penalty. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) also acknowledges receipt of a check from TEPPCO in the amount of $345,903.25 on
June 2, 2009.
By copy of this letter, I have informed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Financial
Operations Division, of the reduction in the penalty and the need for the FAA to refund $20,000,
plus any applicable penalty and interest paid by TEPPCO in this case. If you should have any
questions about this, please contact the FAA at (405) 954-8893 or (405) 954-2685.
Service of this document 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. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA
Mr. Vincent Atriano, Esq., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.,
2000 Huntington Center, 41 South High Street, Columbus, OH 43215
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [70051160000100456808]



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 Partners, LP ) CPF No. 3-2005-5018
(f/n/a Texas Eastern Petroleum )
Products Company), )
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 27, 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued a Final Order in this case, finding that TE Products Pipeline Company, LLC, formerly
known as Texas Eastern Petroleum Products Company (TEPPCO or Petitioner), had committed
10 violations of the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations and assessing civil penalties for
nine of the violations. This proceeding arose out of a June 28, 2002 incident at Petitioner’s
Todhunter facility in Middletown, Ohio (Todhunter Accident). The incident involved the release
of butane vapors during the course of a header piping modification tie-in project that exposed
several workers to toxic butane vapors. One of the workers was overcome by fumes and
subsequently died from butane asphyxiation.
PHMSA initiated an investigation of the Todhunter Accident and subsequently issued a Notice
of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty to Petitioner by letter dated April 25, 2005
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Petitioner
had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and assessing a total civil penalty of $350,000.
Petitioner responded to the Notice by letters dated June 30, 2005, and March 17, 2006
(collectively, Response) and waived its right to an informal hearing. By merger effective
October 26, 2009, TEPPCO became a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners,
LP, the current owner and operator of the pipeline facilities that are the subject of this
proceeding.1
1 2009 Annual Report, Enterprise Products Partners, LP (http://www.epplp.com/pdf/epd-ar-2009.pdf ) (last accessed
9/22/10).



2
The Final Order found Petitioner in violation of all 10 Items alleged in the Notice and assessed a
total civil penalty of $345,000.
2
TEPPCO responded to the Final Order, as permitted under
§ 190.215, by submitting a petition for reconsideration dated April 1, 2009 (Petition).
Petition, TEPPCO did not challenge the findings of violation in the Final Order but requested
reconsideration of the penalty amounts assessed for four of the nine violations. These four
violations are as follows:
3 In its
• (Item 2C) TEPPCO’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its own
written procedures providing Emergency Plan training to the three workers involved in
the Todhunter Accident. The Final Order assessed a penalty of $60,000 for this Item;
• (Item 2D-1) TEPPCO’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its own
written procedures for utilizing Section 3.2(e) of API Publication 2200, “Repairing
Crude Oil, LPG and Products Pipelines,” that required the development of a written
work plan for conducting repairs. The Final Order assessed a penalty of $60,000 for this
Item;
• (Item 2D-2) TEPPCO’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its own
written procedures for utilizing Section 6.2(k) of API Publication 2200 for combustible
gas testing and monitoring at the worksite. The Final Order assessed a penalty of
$40,000 for this Item; and
• (Item 3B) TEPPCO’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c), for failing to verify that the
supervisor involved in the Todhunter Accident had maintained a thorough knowledge of
the company’s applicable operations, maintenance, and emergency procedures. The
Final Order assessed a penalty of $60,000 for this Item.
Petitioner asserts that the penalties cited above are excessive because the Notice only alleged
violations occurring on June 28, 2002, the day of the Todhunter Accident, but that PHMSA was
limited as of the date of the accident to imposing penalties of not more than $25,000 per day of
violation. TEPPCO therefore contends that each of these penalties should be reduced to an
amount not exceeding the $25,000 per-day limit.
4
2 In the Final Order, the penalty for Item 2A of the Notice was reduced from the proposed amount of $30,000 to
$25,000. This was because the Notice had only alleged a single-day violation (i.e., June 28, 2002) and therefore the
penalty was limited to the $25,000 per-day cap discussed more fully below. This reduced penalty for Item 2A served
to reduce the total penalty assessed from $350,000 to $345,000.
3 Section 190.215 provides that a petitioner may request the Associate Administrator to reconsider a final order.
Under such review, the Associate Administrator does not consider repetitious information, arguments, or petitions,
but may consider additional facts or arguments, provided that the petitioner submits a valid reason why such
information was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. The Associate Administrator may grant or deny,
in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings.
4 Petition at 1. The maximum statutory penalties were raised to $100,000 per day for each day of violation, up to a
maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations by the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Pub.
L. 107-355, § 8(b)(1), 116 Stat. 2992 (December 17, 2002). Petitioner urges PHMSA to reduce the total penalty in
this case from $345,000 to $205,000. This is apparently based on the fact that the Final Order stated the penalties
for Items 2C/3A, 2D-1, 2D-2 and 3B were for multiple-day violations and calculated at a rate of $20,000 per day for
each violation. Final Order at 10-11.



3
Discussion
In its Petition, TEPPCO makes two related arguments for a reduction in the four penalties.
First, it asserts that the Notice alleged only single-day violations and that any suggestion in the
Final Order to convert them into multiple-day or continuing violations “would have constituted
‘new material allegations’ to which [TEPPCO] would have been entitled to formally respond
under [49 C.F.R.] § 190.207(c).” To support its argument, Petitioner points to the Violation
Report prepared by the PHMSA Central Region, the document that served as the principal
evidence in the case file and the basis for the Notice and the proposed penalties.
Petitioner relies largely upon a sentence in Section 23b of the Violation Report, “Analysis of
Proposed Remedy,” where it states: “Fines: Other than the Accident Report, the durations are
one (1) day.”5 Petitioner contends that this statement, along with the failure of the Notice to
specifically allege multiple-day violations, precludes PHMSA from finding TEPPCO in violation
of each of the four Items for more than a single day and from imposing more than a total of
$25,000 per violation.
Petitioner asserts that the statement quoted above from the Violation Report shows that, except
for Item 1 dealing with TEPPCO’s alleged failure to file a timely Accident Report after the
accident, the Violation Report and the Notice only encompassed single-day violations. In order
for the agency to impose penalties for multiple-day violations in the Final Order, TEPPCO
asserts that it either had to allege multiple-day violations in the Notice or, under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.207(c), provide TEPPCO with fair notice of such “new” allegations and “increased”
penalties. Section 190.207(c) states:
(c) The Associate Administrator, OPS may amend a notice of
probable violation at any time prior to issuance of a final order under
§ 190.213. If an amendment includes any new material allegations of
fact or proposes an increased civil penalty amount or new or additional
remedial action under § 190.217, the respondent shall have the
opportunity to respond under § 190.209.
According to Petitioner, because PHMSA never amended the Notice “to allege that these Items
were continuing, multiple-day violations prior to issuance of the Final Order, [TEPPCO] was
never given an opportunity to respond to any such allegations.”6
Petitioner is partially correct. First, PHMSA acknowledged in the Final Order that all of the
proposed penalties at issue in this case were subject to the $25,000 per-day limit in effect at the
time of the Todhunter Accident.7 In addition, the agency acknowledges that it is unclear from
5 Office of Pipeline Safety, Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Violation Report, CPF No. 3-2005-5018 (Violation
Report), at 13.
6 Petition at 5 (unnumbered).
7 Final Order at 9.



4
the record how the proposed penalties in the Violation Report were actually calculated or why
the Violation Report contained the statement, insofar as the penalties were concerned, that
statement was meant to characterize the duration of the violations themselves or whether it was
meant to describe the methodology by which the penalties were calculated.
“[o]ther than the Accident Report, the durations are one (1) day.”8 It is unclear whether this
Regardless, Petitioner contends that the four penalties are contrary to law and should be reduced.
Petitioner is correct that 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c) requires that if new factual allegations, penalties
or compliance terms are added after issuance of a Notice of Violation, then it must be amended
or re-issued. The initial question, however, is whether the quoted statement from the Violation
Report, in conjunction with the allegations of violation in the Violation Report and Notice,
constitute allegations of single-day or multiple-day violations. Petitioner argues that the Final
Order, by imposing multiple-day penalties for single-day violations described in the Violation
Report and Notice, violates the notice provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c).
In order to evaluate Petitioner’s argument, it is necessary to consider the facts alleged in the
Notice and the Violation Report for each of the four Items. Each is discussed separately below.
Item 2C. The Violation Report and Notice alleged that TEPPCO violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own written procedures for providing Emergency Plan
training to the contract workers involved in the Todhunter Accident. The Violation Report
alleged that TEPPCO’s procedures called for such training to take place as soon as reasonably
possible after an employee commenced work or was transferred. It is apparent from the facts
alleged in the Notice that the violation was not limited to a single day and that TEPPCO had
adequate notice the alleged violation was ongoing from the time the contract employees were
hired for this project. In addition, both documents proposed a penalty of $60,000 for the
violation, an amount no higher than what was ultimately assessed. At no time did PHMSA
allege any new material allegations of fact or propose any new penalties or corrective actions
that would necessitate an amended Notice or an additional opportunity for TEPPCO to respond,
as required under § 190.207(c). Accordingly, I find that the penalty assessed in the Final Order
for Item 2C does not violate 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c).
Item 2D-1. The Violation Report and Notice alleged that TEPPCO violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to utilize Section 3.2(e) of American Petroleum Institute (API)
Publication 2200, entitled “Repairing Crude Oil, LPG and Products Pipelines,” as required by
Procedure M-245 of TEPPCO’s own Operating and Maintenance Procedures. The API standard
requires the development of a written work plan for repairs, including proper drain-down
procedures and equipment. Petitioner has not disputed the fact that the project was commenced
on June 26, 2002, two days prior to the accident, that the company failed to establish or follow
the required procedures from the time the work commenced, and that the noncompliance
continued during the days of June 26, June 27, and June 28 (the day of the incident). The
Violation Report and Notice are worded in such a way that it is clear the alleged violation was
not limited to a single day and that Petitioner’s failure to develop a written work plan continued
over multiple days of construction. In addition, both documents proposed a penalty of $60,000
8 Office of Pipeline Safety, Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Violation Report, CPF No. 3-2005-5018 (Violation
Report), at 13.



5
for the violation, an amount no higher than what was ultimately assessed. At no time did
PHMSA allege any new material allegations of fact or propose any new penalties or corrective
action that would necessitate an amended Notice or an additional opportunity for TEPPCO to
respond, as required under § 190.207(c). Accordingly, I find that the penalty assessed in the
Final Order for Item 2D-1 does not violate 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c).
.
Item 2D-2. The Violation Report and Notice alleged that TEPPCO violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to utilize Section 6.2(k) of API Publication 2200, as required by
Procedure M-245 of TEPPCO’s own Operating and Maintenance Procedures. Section 6.2(k)
requires that an excavation and its surrounding area be tested and continuously monitored with
a combustible gas indicator, an oxygen monitor, or both, to determine whether the atmosphere
is safe in which to work. The Notice and Violation Report both alleged that at the time of the
Todhunter Accident, neither a combustible gas indicator nor an oxygen monitor was in use at
the worksite.
The Violation Report and Notice further alleged that on Friday, June 28, 2002, combustible
gas indicator and oxygen monitor readings were taken at the site, that TEPPCO subsequently
suffered a butane release later that day, and that the company failed to follow its procedure
requiring continuous gas monitoring. Neither document states or implies that the failure to
monitor continuously extended throughout the project or for multiple days. No evidence was
provided by OPS to show a continuing violation. While both documents state that readings were
taken on June 28,
OPS considered the violation to be continuing in nature and extending over multiple days.
9 this is insufficient information to provide Petitioner with adequate notice that
In its Petition, TEPPCO argues that the penalty for Item 2D-2 should be reduced to $20,000
since the Final Order stated that the proposed penalty of $40,000 was based upon a two-day
violation at $20,000 per day.10
While it is possible that the violation did continue for two or
more days and that the larger penalty is warranted, I consider it appropriate under the
circumstances to leave the Final Order intact on this issue. Accordingly, I find that the penalty
assessed in the Final Order for Item 2D-2 is contrary to 49 C.F.R. § 190. 207(c) and therefore
I reduce the penalty to $20,000, the amount assessed in the Final Order for a single-day
violation.
Item 3B. The Violation Report and Notice alleged that TEPPCO violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.403(c) by failing to verify that the supervisor involved in the Todhunter Accident had
maintained a thorough knowledge of the applicable operations, maintenance, and emergency
procedures established under § 195.402 for which he was responsible. The two documents
alleged that TEPPCO was unable to produce any records, upon request, to demonstrate that
the supervisor had received any training in applicable TEPPCO operations, maintenance and
emergency procedures. Such training, by its very nature, would continue over an extended
period of time, and not be limited to the day of the accident. In addition, both documents
proposed a penalty of $60,000 for the violation, an amount no higher than what was ultimately
9 The Violation Report refers to the date of the readings as “Friday, June 26, 2002,” but the Notice and Exhibit 8 of
the Violation Report refer to the date as “Friday, June 28, 2002,” the date of the accident. The Final Order correctly
stated the date of the accident as being June 28, 2002.
10 Final Order at 11.



6
assessed. At no time did PHMSA allege any new material allegations of fact or propose any
new penalties or corrective action that would necessitate an amended Notice or an additional
opportunity for TEPPCO to respond, as required under § 190.207(c). Accordingly, I find that
the penalty assessed in the Final Order for Item 3B does not violate 49 C.F.R. § 190.207(c).
Petitioner’s second argument in the Petition is that PHMSA’s failure to provide TEPPCO with
adequate notice of the duration of four of the alleged violations constitutes a “denial of TE’s
right to due process.”11 Since I have already agreed that the penalty imposed for Item 2D-2
should be reduced, there is no need to address the due process argument relating to that Item.
As for the other three penalties, I disagree with Petitioner that its due process rights have been
violated. Petitioner never cited any legal authority to support its claim that it was deprived of
due process and I am unaware of any case law that would mandate such a conclusion. The due
process principles embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution require
that persons alleged to have committed violations receive adequate notice of the allegations and
of the potential penalties that may be imposed against them, in order that they have an adequate
opportunity to defend themselves.
Notice both set forth the basic facts constituting the three alleged violations and that they were
continuing in nature.
12 In this case, as noted above, the Violation Report and
Furthermore, both documents stated that the proposed penalty for Item 2C was $60,000, that
the proposed penalty for Item 2D-1 was $60,000, and that the proposed penalty for Item 3B
was $60,000. Under due process and notions of fundamental fairness, PHMSA could not have
properly imposed penalties higher than the amounts proposed for each Item in the Notice without
re-issuing or amending the Notice and giving the operator a full opportunity to prepare an
adequate defense against the new charges. However, in this case, Petitioner had full and
adequate notice of the substantive violations and the maximum penalties for which it could
potentially be held liable and had ample opportunity to defend itself. The company filed and
later withdrew a request for an informal hearing, at which time it could have more fully
presented its objections to the proposed penalties. In addition, the petition for reconsideration
process, of which TEPPCO has availed itself here, provides Petitioner with still another
opportunity to present evidence and legal argument showing that the violations were limited
to the day of the Todhunter Accident and were not continuing in nature. Petitioner, however,
has failed to present any evidence showing that it did not, in fact, commit ongoing violations.
Accordingly, I find that Petitioner had fair notice of both the alleged violations and the proposed
penalty amounts and that it has not suffered a violation of its right of due process.
11 Petition at page 5.
12 E.g., In the Matter of Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, C.P.F. No. 4-
2005-8004 (Oct. 2, 2009) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).



7
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have reconsidered the entire record in this proceeding in light of TEPPCO’s
Petition. I find that the Violation Report and Notice alleged facts that constituted continuing
violations with respect to Items 2C, 2D-1, and 3B and that Petitioner has been provided with fair
and adequate notice of the proposed penalty levels and the basis for those levels, in accordance
with both the administrative procedures in 49 C.F.R. Part 190 and principles of due process.
As for Item 2D-2. I find that TEPPCO violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as alleged in the Notice,
on June 28, 2002, and that the maximum potential penalty for such single-day violation was
$25,000. I hereby reduce the assessed penalty for this Item to $20,000, the amount attributed to
a single-day violation for this Item in the Final Order. Since the assessed penalty of $40,000 has
been already paid by Petitioner, I order that the difference of $20,000 be refunded to Petitioner.
All other provisions of the Final Order, including the findings of violation and the total reduced
penalty of $325,000, which amount has already been paid, will remain in effect as set forth
therein. This Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration is the final administrative action in
this proceeding.
___________________________________ __________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320055018_FnalOrder _02272009_text.pdf

Mr. Leonard Mallett
Vice President of Operations
TE Products Pipeline Company, LLC
P.O. Box 2521
Houston, TX 77252-6500
Re: CPF No. 3-2005-5018
Dear Mr. Mallett:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation
and assesses a civil penalty of $345,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final
Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final
Order constitutes service of that document 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: Ivan Huntoon, Director, Central Region, PHMSA
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 )
TE Products Pipeline Company, LLC ) CPF No. 3-2005-5018
(f/n/a Texas Eastern Petroleum )
Products Company), )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On June 29, 2002, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), initiated an
investigation of a June 28, 2002, accident at the hazardous liquid pipeline facility of TE Products
Pipeline Company, LLC (TEPPCO or Respondent) known as the Todhunter facility, located at
3590 Yankee Road, Middletown, Ohio. TEPPCO is the general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.,
which owns and operates one of the largest common carrier petroleum products pipelines in the
United States. The accident involved a release of butane vapors that occurred during the course of
a header piping modification tie-in project, during which several TEPPCO contract workers were
exposed to the toxic butane vapors. One of the workers, Mr. Brandon Jones, was overcome by
fumes and subsequently died from butane asphyxiation.
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Central Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by
letter dated April 25, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed
various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and assessing a total civil penalty of $350,000.
Respondent initially responded to the Notice by letter dated June 30, 2005 (Response).
Respondent contested some of the allegations, presented information and explanations in
mitigation of the proposed penalty, and requested an oral hearing. By letter dated March 17, 2006,
Respondent submitted additional responsive materials and withdrew its request for a hearing
(Supplemental 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. § 195.54(a), which states:



2
§ 195.54 Accident reports.
(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required
to be reported under § 195.50 shall as soon as practicable, but not later
than 30 days after discovery of the accident, prepare and file an
accident report on DOT Form 7000–1, or a facsimile.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to file a DOT Form 7000–1 report
regarding the June 28, 2002, accident at TEPPCO’s Todhunter facility (Todhunter Accident)
within 30 days of the incident. In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that it had failed to
file the report within 30 days of the accident. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence,
I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 by failing to file a DOT Form 7000-1 report
within 30 days of the Todhunter Accident.
Item 2A: 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 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.
Specifically, Item 2A alleged that Respondent failed to follow its own written policy for
documenting the use of a lockout/tag out procedure by completing the relevant section of the
TEPPCO Safe Work Permit form.
1
On June 26, 2002, two days before the accident, Respondent
closed certain valves in connection with the piping modification project, but without completing
the relevant sections of the form. In its Response, TEPPCO acknowledged that it failed to
document the use of the lockout/tag out procedure, as described in the Notice. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing
to follow its own written policy for documenting the use of a lockout/tag out procedure by
completing the relevant section of the TEPPCO Safe Work Permit form.
1 The term “Respondent,” as used in this Final Order, includes Respondent’s contractors. The workers who were
performing the header installation were contract workers subject to the same training and qualification requirements
as TEPPCO’s permanent employees. 49 C.F.R. § 195.10 states:
§ 195.10 Responsibility of operator for compliance with this part.
An operator may make arrangements with another person for the performance of any
action required by this part. However, the operator is not thereby relieved from the
responsibility for compliance with any requirements of this part.



3
Item 2B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow its own written procedures for implementing the company’s emergency plan
when the butane release occurred in the Todhunter Accident. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that on June 28, 2002, two of the contractor’s workers, while working in an excavation trench,
were in the process of removing bolts that retained a “blind”2
between two flanges when gas
began to leak out. The men exited the trench and notified their supervisor. The supervisor
instructed them to let the gas leak until it stopped and then to go back and remove the blind. The
workers subsequently re-entered the trench and proceeded to remove the blind, causing the leak
to intensify and form a butane vapor cloud. The workers continued working within the cloud
until they began to suffer the effects of butane asphyxiation.
The Notice further alleged that the supervisor then returned to the excavation site and ordered the
workers from the hole. The supervisor himself then entered the vapor cloud without appropriate
protective gear and attempted to reinstall and tighten the bolts to stop the leak. One of the
workers then re-entered the vapor cloud to assist the supervisor, who was suffering the effects of
butane asphyxiation. Shortly afterward, the worker who re-entered the butane cloud collapsed
and died. The coroner’s report indicated that the worker, Mr. Jones, died of acute butane
asphyxiation.
The Notice alleged that under its Emergency Procedures, Respondent was required to take the
following actions upon the release of a hazardous product or when an imminent danger to
employees on duty existed:
• The notification of all persons who “might be in imminent danger from the escaping
product” that an emergency existed;
• The immediate reporting of the emergency, in accordance with a specific sequence;
• A prohibition on personnel entering the affected area until all escaping product was
under control; and
• The proper repair of facilities following the emergency. Such repairs must be
conducted “utilizing the necessary equipment, trained personnel aware of and
familiar with the hazards to public and personnel safety, and appropriate repair
materials.
”3
In its Response, TEPPCO presented three arguments why the provisions of its Emergency Plan
cited in the Notice were not applicable to the Todhunter Accident. First, TEPPCO argued that
the initial release of butane did not constitute an “emergency” as long as the workers were
attempting to stop the leak. Only after the supervisor had unsuccessfully attempted to control the
2 According to TEPPCO, a “blind” or “skillet” is “a safety device used as an extra precaution in pipelines that have
been shut down. It is designed to ensure that gas is contained in the pipeline in case the flow of gas has not been
properly terminated.” Response, at 1-2.
3 TEPPCO Pipeline Emergency Procedures, Page 7 item 2(f), Page 8 item (i), and Page 17 item IV.



4
leak himself did he identify the situation as an “emergency,” “assess and control the release site,”
notify the proper parties, and attempt to prevent possible further injury, damage, or the spread of
petroleum liquids. Response, at 4.
Second, TEPPCO contended that its attempts to repair the leak did not constitute “a repair
following an emergency,
” as provided in its Emergency Plan, because the workers’ actions “in
attempting to re-secure the skillet were undertaken prior to and in the midst of an emergency.”
Response, at 4. Third, it argued that the prohibition on personnel entering “the affected area”
was not applicable since the three contract workers were already in the area.
I find all of these arguments unpersuasive. As for TEPPCO’s argument that the initial release of
butane did not constitute an “emergency” under its Emergency Plan, the facts are that the release
of butane quickly formed a visible vapor cloud that was extremely hazardous and caused
dizziness and disorientation in the two workers and their supervisor, none of whom had self-
contained breathing apparatus. The Emergency Plan clearly defines an “emergency” as a leak
and/or hazard to a worker.
4
This occurred as soon as the butane escaped and formed a vapor
cloud.
As for its argument that the Emergency Plan did not apply to a repair being undertaken “prior to
or in the midst of” an emergency, Respondent’s Pipeline Emergency Procedures required that all
repairs be conducted with appropriate equipment and by trained personnel who were aware of
the hazards involved. Both logic and Respondent’s own written procedures dictated that all
repairs be undertaken in accordance with the Emergency Plan after an emergency had
commenced. In this case, as discussed above, an emergency existed as soon as the butane vapor
cloud formed. Therefore, the Emergency Plan applied to the repairs undertaken subsequent to the
release, especially those undertaken in the “midst” of such an emergency.
As for its argument that the Emergency Plan’s prohibition on workers entering a hazardous area
did not apply because the workers were already there, such a contention is specious at best. If a
butane vapor cloud creates an area too dangerous for persons to enter, then the area is obviously
too dangerous for persons to remain in it.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own procedures for implementing the Emergency Plan when
the hazardous leak occurred.
Item 2C: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,
by failing to follow its own written procedures for providing Emergency Plan training to the
workers involved in the Todhunter Accident. On page 5, the Emergency Plan requires all
operating and maintenance employees to receive training to acquaint them with the Emergency
Plan.
In its Response, TEPPCO acknowledged that it “could not provide documentation that this
4 TEPPCO Emergency Plan, Page 1.



5
training was ongoing.” In its Supplemental Response, TEPPCO argued that its Emergency Plan
did not “expressly require any particular documentation of training…
” nor did § 195.402(a)
require it. Respondent further argued that as employees of a company that specialized in
providing repair, maintenance, and construction services to liquid pipeline companies, the three
workers involved must have had some training and contended that the allegation in the Notice
was based on an assumption by PHMSA that daily briefings given to these workers did not
constitute an appropriate mode of training. Finally, TEPPCO asserted that PHMSA failed to
produce any direct evidence that the contract workers hadn’t received any training and therefore
that the agency failed to meet its burden of proof on this item.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. While TEPPCO had an established training program for
its own employees that included training on the Emergency Plan, it is clear from the record that
the three workers involved in this accident were not given such training. Moreover, TEPPCO’s
own procedures did not authorize the use of daily briefings as a substitute for actual worker
training. Second, Respondent’s Emergency Plan states, “A record shall be maintained of the
initial training of all appropriate operating and maintenance personnel to make them acquainted
with the emergency procedures” (Emphasis added). Because the contract employees were
involved in performing work on TEPPCO’s hazardous liquid pipeline, they were clearly
“appropriate” personnel who should have received training on how to respond to emergencies
such as the release of butane vapors in the Todhunter Accident. Finally, with respect to the
“burden of proof” argument, PHMSA did not allege that the three workers had no training at all,
only that the established mode of emergency training that Respondent provided to its other
personnel was not given to these contract personnel.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own procedures for providing Emergency Plan training to
the three workers involved in the Todhunter Accident.
Item 2D-1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted
above, by failing to utilize Section 3.2(e) of API Publication 2200, entitled “Repairing Crude Oil,
LPG and Products Pipelines,
” as required by Procedure M-245 of TEPPCO’s own Operating
and Maintenance Procedures. Section 3.2(e) requires the development of a written work plan for
repairs, including proper drain down procedures and equipment, where necessary.
In its Response, TEPPCO contended that the piping modification project was not a “repair” and
therefore that the company was not responsible for following API 2200. In its Supplemental
Response, TEPPCO also argued that there was “no mention of API Publication 2200 or 2201 in
Procedure M-245” and that, as a result, the API publication was inapplicable.
We find these arguments unconvincing. In the context of Respondent’s own operating
procedures, a project requiring modifications or revisions to a working pipeline, including a tie-
in and header, would invoke the repair section of Respondent’s manual (i.e., there is no
construction section). Section 3.1 of API 2200 contains a general statement of its applicability to
“piping revisions, replacements, or repairs….” The term “repair” is sometimes used as



6
shorthand when referring to the modification and replacement of piping or piping revisions such
as a manifold installation because they all involve taking steps such as area assessment,
development of work plans, consideration of flow and pressure conditions, shut down and drain
down (if required), excavation, welding materials and practices, etc.
In addition, Respondent’s statement that there was no mention of API 2200 or 2201 in Procedure
M-245 is incorrect. The relevant version of Procedure M-245 is designated at the top of each
page as “Revision Number 1, Revised date January 31, 2002.” Respondent may have
subsequently revised Procedure M-245 to remove the API references but the version that was in
effect at the time of the accident specifically included references to API 2200 and 2201. The
evidence shows that TEPPCO failed to develop a written work plan for the installation of the
new header at the Todhunter facility, as required under Section 3.2(e) of API Publication 2200.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Responde
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 62252