# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320095022
- **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:** 2009-10-28
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(3), 195.422(a), 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 199.105(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320095022.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320095022.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320095022
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320095022
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(3),  195.422(a),  195.505(a),  195.505(b),  199.105(b). The case was opened on 2009-10-28 and is reported as closed as of 2013-08-26. Proposed civil penalty: $466,200. Assessed civil penalty: $466,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320095022_Closure_08262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Closure_08262013.pdf

320095022_Closure_08262013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Closure_08262013_text.pdf

320095022_Final Order_08142012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Final%20Order_08142012.pdf

320095022_Final Order_08142012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Final%20Order_08142012_text.pdf

320095022_NOPV PCP PCO_10282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10282009.pdf

320095022_NOPV PCP PCO_10282009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10282009_text.pdf

320095022_Response to NOPV-Letter-Sections 1-4_11252009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Response%20to%20NOPV-Letter-Sections%201-4_11252009.pdf

320095022_Response to NOPV-Sections 5-9_11252009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Response%20to%20NOPV-Sections%205-9_11252009.pdf

320095022_Response to NOPV-Sections10-12_11252009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095022/320095022_Response%20to%20NOPV-Sections10-12_11252009.pdf

320095022_NOPV PCP PCO_10282009_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND BY FACSIMILE TO: 713-381-8056
October 28, 2009
Mr. Terry Hurlburt
Vice President – Operations
Enterprise Products Operating LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 3-2009-5022
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
On September 11, 2007, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) was notified by the National Response Center (Report No. 848445) of an accident
involving a hazardous liquid pipeline operated by Enterprise Products Operating LLC
(Enterprise). The accident occurred on Enterprise’s 12-inch “Brown” line in Clark County
Kansas, approximately three miles north of Englewood, KS at Mile Post (MP) 362. The failure
resulted in the release of approximately 14,763 barrels of a highly volatile liquid, specifically
Y-grade de-methanized natural gas liquid (NGL) mix. As a result of this failure State Highway
283 was closed for five days.
The subsequent investigation confirmed that the cause of the release was the failure of a
threaded connection on 2-inch diameter bypass piping. The 2-inch diameter bypass was
installed on the 12-inch Brown line approximately 10 hours before the failure on September
10, 2007, after a maintenance pig became lodged in the mainline valve setting at Mile Post
362.



As a result of our investigation of this accident, it appears that you have committed probable
violations of the pipeline safety regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The
probable violations are:
1. §195.422 Pipeline Repairs.
(a) Each operator shall, in repairing its pipeline systems, insure that the repairs
are made in a safe manner and are made so as to prevent damage to persons or
property.
Enterprise did not insure that the installation of the bypass, as part of the repair effort to
remove the lodged maintenance pig, was made in a safe manner so as to prevent
damage. As evidenced by the failure shortly after installation that resulted in the
release of NGL and property damage, the repair was not made in a safe manner and
was inadequate to prevent damage.
The 2-inch diameter bypass piping was installed on September 10, 2007, to allow
product flow around the lodged pig. To accomplish removal of the lodged pig and
repair of the pipeline, Enterprise intended to weld stopple fittings to the 12-inch Brown
line while product was flowing through the 2-inch bypass.
The post-accident failure analysis concluded that the connection of a 2-inch ball valve
to a 2-inch fitting was incorrectly installed resulting in damage to the threads. This
damaged threaded connection failed at approximately 12:13 a.m. on September 11,
2007, resulting in over 14,000 barrels released from the pipeline.
2. §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
commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)
of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
Enterprise did not include written procedures in its Operations and Maintenance
manual that provide for adequate safety when installing threaded pipefittings in
connection with performing maintenance and repairs to its pipeline system. Written
procedures for pipefitting are necessary to assure safety when conducting maintenance
and repair activities.
2



3. §195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks;
Enterprise did not include pipefitting in the list of covered tasks as part of its Operator
Qualification program. The assembly of threaded pipe connections would be part of
the pipefitting task. Pipefitting is an operations and maintenance task performed on the
pipeline that affects pipeline operation and integrity, and is required by §195.422.
4. §195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The
program shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified;
The personnel that installed the 2-inch bypass piping were not evaluated to ensure that
they were qualified to perform pipefitting (the task of joining pipe using threaded
connections). The pipefitting task was completed on September 10, 2007,
approximately 10 hours prior to the failure. Enterprise indicated that nine individuals
were involved in performing the installation of the 2-inch bypass piping.
5. §199.105 Drug tests required.
Each operator shall conduct the following drug tests for the presence of a
prohibited drug:
(b) Post-accident testing. As soon as possible but no later than 32 hours after an
accident, an operator shall drug test each employee whose performance either
contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing
factor to the accident. An operator may decide not to test under this paragraph
but such a decision must be based on the best information available immediately
after the accident that the employee's performance could not have contributed to
the accident or that, because of the time between that performance and the
accident, it is not likely that a drug test would reveal whether the performance
was affected by drug use.
Enterprise did not conduct post-accident drug testing of the nine employees that were
involved with installation of the 2-inch bypass. The installation of the
2-inch bypass piping was completed at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 10,
2007, and the failure of the bypass piping occurred at 12:13 a.m. on September 11,
2007. Due to the timing of the accident shortly after installation of the bypass piping,
employee performance could not be completely discounted as a contributing factor to
the accident. Additionally, there was not a sufficiently long period of time between
installation of bypass and the accident to conclude that a drug test would not likely
reveal whether employee performance was affected by drug use.
Review of the accident confirmed that employee performance contributed to the
accident because a threaded connection was damaged by personnel on September 10,3



2007 during installation of the bypass. Enterprise indicated that twelve persons were
involved with planning, supervising and installing the 2-inch bypass.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $466,200 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $100,000
2 $133,100
4 $133,100
5 $100,000
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to
Enterprise Products Operating LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is
enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies
for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document
you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find
facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order in your
correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2009-5022 and for each document you
submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
4



Sincerely,
Ivan A. Huntoon
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
5



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enterprise Products Operating LLC (Enterprise)
a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the
compliance of Enterprise with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of written
procedures, Enterprise must prepare and submit written procedures for
pipefitting. Pipefitting includes, but is not limited to; making and/or connecting
threaded pipe and components, assembling flanged pipe and components,
coupled connections, bending and/or connection of instrument and control
tubing, and inspections of completed pipefitting assemblies. The procedures
shall also include, but not be limited to, description of the following: minimum
pipe and component strength, minimum pressure ratings and dimensions of pipe
and components, maximum unsupported length of completed assemblies, and
other requirements necessary to assure that completed assemblies conform to 49
CFR Part 195.
2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to inclusion of pipefitting
as a covered task, Enterprise must identify and add to its covered task list any
and all tasks associated with pipefitting. Pipefitting task(s) are as described in
Item 1 above of the Proposed Compliance Order. The identification of
pipefitting task(s) must be in conformance with the requirements of 49 CFR
Part 195, Subpart G – Qualification of Pipeline Personnel.
3. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to evaluation and
qualification of employees to perform pipefitting, Enterprise must prepare and
submit a written evaluation and qualification program for pipefitting in
conformance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 195, Subpart G –
Qualification of Pipeline Personnel.
4. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to evaluation and
qualification of employees to perform pipefitting, Enterprise must complete the
training, evaluation, and qualification of all personnel who will perform
pipefitting tasks on its pipeline.
5. Items 1, 2, and 3 of the Proposed Compliance Order must be completed and
submitted for approval by the Director, Central Region, PHMSA within 30 days
after receipt of the Final Order.
6. Item 4 of the Proposed Compliance Order must be completed and documented
within 90 days after receipt of the Final Order. Enterprise shall submit
documentation to the Director, Central Region, PHMSA demonstrating that
training, evaluation, and qualification of personnel is complete.
7. Enterprise shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Ivan A.
Huntoon, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost
associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,
and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to
pipeline infrastructure.
6

320095022_Closure_08262013_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 26, 2013
Mr. Terry Hurlburt
Vice President - Operations
Enterprise Products Operating LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 3-2009-5022
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
On August 14, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) issued to Enterprise Products Operating, LLC a Final Order in the above-
referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.
Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of
the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this
Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to
the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Daugherty
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

320095022_Final Order_08142012_text.pdf

August 14, 2012
Mr. Michael A. Creel
President and CEO
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 3-2009-5022
Dear Mr. Creel:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $466,200. It further specifies actions that need to be
taken by Enterprise to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms
are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order satisfied, as determined by the Director, Central 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. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Edward C. Lewis, Esquire, Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, Counsel for Enterprise Products
Operating, LLC
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 )
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2009-5022
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
In September 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), opened
an investigation of an incident involving the hazardous liquid pipeline system operated by
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), in Clark County, Kansas.
Respondent is a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, which transports natural gas,
NGL crude oil, refined products, and petrochemicals through more than 50,000 miles of pipeline
in North America.1
The investigation arose out of an incident that occurred on Enterprise’s 12-inch “Brown” line
(Brown Pipeline) in Clark County, Kansas, approximately three miles north of Englewood,
Kansas, at Mile Post (MP) 362, on September 11, 2007 (Incident). The Brown Pipeline begins in
Skellytown, Texas, and runs through Conway, Kansas; the total system is approximately 1,150
miles. The Incident resulted in the release of approximately 14,763 barrels of a highly volatile
liquid (HVL), specifically, Y-grade de-methanized NGL mix. Due to its proximity to the Brown
Pipeline and the continuing release of flammable product, State Highway 283 was closed for five
days.2
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated October 28, 2009, 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,
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $466,200 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Enterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated November 25, 2009 (Response). The
1 http://www.enterpriseproducts.com/corpProfile/businessProfile.shtm (last accessed December 27, 2011).
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), CPF 3-2009-5022, October 28, 2009 (on file with PHMSA).



2
company contested the allegations and requested a hearing, which was subsequently held on May
11, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA,
presiding. At the hearing, Enterprise was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Enterprise
provided a post-hearing statement for the record by letter dated June 18, 2010 (Closing).
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. § 195.422(a), which states:
§ 195.422 Pipeline repairs.
(a) Each operator shall, in repairing its pipeline systems, insure that the
repairs are made in a safe manner and are made so as to prevent damage to
persons or property.
The Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a) by failing to insure, during
the repair of its pipeline system, that the repairs were made in a safe manner and so as to prevent
damage to persons or property. Specifically, it alleged that on the day before the Incident,
bypass piping was installed as part of an effort to remove a maintenance “pig” that had become
lodged in the pipeline. The Notice further alleged that the company’s own post-incident failure
analysis concluded that the failure was caused by the incorrect installation of the connection of a
two-inch ball valve to a two-inch fitting on the bypass piping, resulting in damage to the
threads.3
In its Response, at the hearing, and in its Closing, Enterprise maintained that the repair had been
made correctly and safely, and asserted that the fact that an incident occurred did not mean that
the repair had not been made in a safe manner. As stated in the job plan for the repair project,
Enterprise contended that it had taken “extensive steps to ensure that the bypass project ‘was
performed in a good and workmanlike manner enforcing all company policies, procedures,
specifications, and guidelines.’”4 Enterprise also stated that it had taken “every reasonable
precaution to ensure that the bypass project was performed safely,” even listing some of the
precautionary measures it had taken in preparation for the project.5 The company further
asserted that “under PHMSA’s analysis, any accident following a pipeline repair would
constitute a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.422,” and that such a conclusion was “inappropriate,
arbitrary, and capricious.”6
Enterprise is correct that the mere fact an incident occurs following an accident does not
constitute a violation per se of the regulation. The heart of the alleged violation, however, is that
3 Notice at 2.
4 Response at 3.
5 Id. at 3-4
6 Response at 3, Closing at 3.



3
the company failed to conduct the repair in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to persons
or property. Over-tightening a threaded connection can easily damage the threads on the pipe,
resulting in threads that are either not fully engaged or are over-engaged when assembled. This
can lead to a failure at the pipe connection or excessive stress on the connection. In this case, the
record shows that Enterprise had no procedures in its Operations and Maintenance Manual
(O&M Manual) or in the Job Plan for this specific repair on how to make a threaded connection
safely. Enterprise employees who were interviewed after the Incident reported that they had
simply tightened the fitting as hard as they could, using the largest wrench they had available.
According to Enterprise’s own report, the most probable cause of the failure was incorrect
installation of the 2” ball valve. The report states: “Overall damage to the TOR [thread-o-ring]
external threads indicated that the valve was improperly placed on the TOR and tightened,
resulting in damage to the internal valve threads and external TOR threads.”7 This conclusion is
further supported by the “out-of-roundness of the TOR threads” and “statements from field
personnel noting that the plug separated from the pilot of the removal tool when extracted.”8
The cause of the Incident was the failure of the threaded connection, which was an element of
the repair.9 That the repair itself caused the failure is a strong indication that the repair work was
not performed in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to persons or property. Accordingly,
after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a) by failing to insure that the installation of the bypass was made
in a safe manner and so as to prevent damage to persons or property.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), 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….
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph
(a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety
during maintenance and normal operations:
(1) ….
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance
7 Violation Report, Exhibit A, Description of Bypass Failure, MAPL South Leg (12” Brown Line), Derek Gilboe,
PEng, February 14, 2008, at 4.
8 Id.
9 Id.



4
with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part….
The Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to include
procedures in its O&M Manual for adequate safety during maintenance and normal operations.
Specifically, the manual had no written procedures for installing threaded pipefittings in
connection with repairs made in accordance with the requirements of Subpart F.10
In its Response, Enterprise stated that its O&M Manual and Operator Qualification (OQ)
Documentation complied with § 195.402(c)(3) by requiring that all repairs “be made in a manner
that is safe and will prevent injury to persons or damage to property,” that “no valve, pipe or
fitting… be used… unless it is designed, constructed and tested as required in the Company
Engineering Design Standards,” and that repairs “be made in accordance with ANSI B31.4,
Paragraph 434.5….”11 However, at the hearing and in its Closing, Enterprise admitted that it had
no detailed procedures in its O&M Manual for making threaded connections and did not contest
the alleged violation.12
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to include procedures in its O&M Manual for adequate
safety in repairing its pipeline system in accordance with the requirements of Subpart F.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states:
§ Sec. 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks….
The Notice alleged that Enterprise violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) by failing to have and follow
a written qualification program that included adequate provisions to identify “covered tasks,” as
that term is defined under § 195.501(b). Specifically, it alleged that Enterprise did not include
pipefitting in its list of covered tasks even though § 195.422 requires all repairs to be “made in a
safe manner” and “so as to prevent damage to persons or property.” The Notice explained that
pipefitting, as a covered task, would include the assembly of threaded pipe connections and that
it met the four-part test for covered tasks under § 195.501(b) for making repairs on Enterprise’s
pipeline system.
Throughout this proceeding, Enterprise has argued that pipefitting is not a covered task because
it does not meet the four-part test in § 195.501(b). That regulation defines a covered task as any
activity that (1) is performed on a pipeline facility, (2) is an operations or maintenance task, (3)
is performed as a requirement of Part 195, and (4) affects the operation or integrity of the
pipeline. Specifically, the company contends that pipefitting does not satisfy the third prong of
10 Notice at 2.
11 Response at 4.
12 Closing at 3.



5
the test because Part 195 “must include a requirement specifically regulating the activity” but
there is no specific requirement in Part 195 regarding the use of pipefitting in making safe
repairs.13
As a preliminary matter, it may be helpful to describe generally the role of pipefitting in the
operations and maintenance of pipelines. Pipefitting is the work of fabricating, constructing,
operating, and maintaining piping systems in many industries, and most pipeline repair
operations involve a pipefitting task of some kind. In this particular case, the repair involved the
assembly of threaded steel pipe. Pipefitting that is not performed correctly can cause safety and
integrity risks to a pipeline. A pipefitting task that does not follow all the required procedures
can cause a future failure or a condition that would require a pipeline to be shut down for further
repair.
Enterprise presented three main arguments why it believes pipefitting does not meet the third
prong of the test for covered tasks. First, the company argues that the rulemaking history of
Subpart G of Part 195, Qualification of Pipeline Personnel, indicates that the intent of the rule is
to include only those tasks “specifically regulated through very specific requirements” in Part
195.14
According to Enterprise, the preamble of the final rule provides five examples of activities that
qualify as covered tasks, and each one represents a task that is specifically required by a
particular regulation.
15 In contrast, PHMSA has relied in this case upon a “general provision” in
§ 195.422 that repairs be made “in a safe manner.” The company argues that the lack of a
specific regulation about the installation of threaded pipe in Part 195 indicates a conscious
decision by PHMSA not to make pipefitting a covered task. If PHMSA had wanted to regulate
the joining of threaded steel pipe, it could have easily done so, just as it had done for certain
welding practices.
16
13 Closing at 5.
14 Id. at 6.
15 Closing at 5-6; 64 FR 46860. Enterprise cites five examples from the preamble of the rule: purging a pipeline;
leakage surveys of distribution lines; starting, operating and shutting down gas compressor units; inspection of
navigable water crossings; and inspection of breakout tanks.
16 Id. at 10-11. Enterprise further argues that the omission of any specific regulation in Part 195 about pipefitting
should be interpreted in the same way as an omission in a statute. Roberto v. Department of Navy, 440 F.3d 1341,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006). That case, however, states: “When construing a regulation or statute, it is appropriate first to
examine the regulatory language itself to determine its plain meaning…. If the regulatory language is clear and
unambiguous, the inquiry ends with the plain meaning. However, if the regulation is silent or ambiguous, the court
then gives deference to the agency's own interpretations.” [Citations omitted].
The company also finds significance in the removal of certain language from the final rule that had appeared in the
proposed rule. The proposed rule proposed that activities conducted “pursuant to requirements” in Part 195 satisfied
the third prong of the four-part test; the final rule substituted the phrase “performed as a requirement of this Part.”
Enterprise argues this change demonstrates an intent on the part of the agency to limit covered tasks only to those
specifically required by a particular regulation. The final rule, however, indicated that the regulatory text was
changed simply as a clarification and gave no indication it was intended as a substantive revision. I would also note
that the heading in the preamble of the final rule still retained the phrase, “Tasks Performed Pursuant to a
Requirement in 49 CFR Part 192 or 195.” Id. at 7-8; FR 46860.



6
I do not read the final rule so narrowly. If Part 195 requires an operator to perform a certain
activity, then an operator is obliged to identify the specific covered tasks it performs as part of
carrying out that required activity. In this case, Respondent concedes that making repairs in a
safe manner, as required by § 195.422, constitutes a covered task.17
Making pipeline repairs in a safe manner involves myriad tasks that may vary from one job to
another or from one operator to another. The regulation provides flexibility for each operator to
identify those particular repair tasks that meet the four-part test and to ensure that individuals
performing such covered tasks are properly qualified.
Many of the pipeline safety regulations, including § 195.422, contain performance-based, rather
than prescriptive, requirements. Unlike the latter, performance-based regulations require
proactive planning, operations, and accountability by an operator for its own unique systems. If
covered tasks only include those activities that are specifically regulated by Parts 192 and 195,
no performance-based regulation would ever constitute an OQ “requirement” since, by
definition, a performance-based requirement (e.g., that a repair be made “in a safe manner”) does
not consist of specific, detailed procedures that must be followed by each operator.
I interpret § 195.505 more broadly. The OQ regulations require operators to identify covered
tasks for all of their operations and maintenance activities that are required by Parts 192 and 195,
regardless of whether such activities arise from performance-based regulations or from more
prescriptive requirements. For those that are performance-based regulations, such as § 195.422,
this means determining which tasks are so integral to meeting the requirements of the regulations
that they need to be treated as separate covered tasks under the third prong of the test.
In this case, Enterprise asserts that pipefitting should not be considered a separate covered task
under the requirement of making repairs safely under § 195.422. However, a careful review of
the record shows that for this particular repair, Enterprise itself identified multiple separate
covered tasks, including “Install Mechanical Bolt on Clamp,” “Install Full Encirclement Weld
Sleeve,” “Install Composite Repair Sleeve,” “Operate/Maintain Stopple Equipment,” and
“Operate/Maintain Hot Tapping Equipment,” and explicitly referenced the general safe-repair
requirement found in § 195.422 as constituting the regulatory basis for each task.
18 Therefore,
by its own actions and treatment of other repair-related activities related to this particular project,
Enterprise recognized that other critical activities were covered tasks, even though they were not
“specifically required” by particular regulations in Part 195. Pipefitting is no different.19
17 Response at 5.
18 Response at Section 5.
19 Both Enterprise and OPS cited the positions taken by different trade and standards-setting organizations to
support their respective positions. OPS cited the position of the ASME B31Q Committee’s Pipeline Personnel
Qualification Standard (PPQ Standard) that the joining of threaded pipe constitutes a covered task. Enterprise
countered that the PPQ Standard defines the term “covered task” more broadly than § 195.501(b), and that therefore
the B31Q Committee’s position is irrelevant. Enterprise also pointed out that the American Petroleum Institute
(API) Operator Qualification Workgroup Committee concluded that joining threaded pipe is not a covered task. I
would note that neither the API nor the ASME definition of “covered task” is incorporated by reference into the



7
In this case, it is undisputed that § 195.422 requires repairs to be made safely and that Enterprise
properly treated the regulation as a regulatory requirement. The company also prepared a
detailed job plan that identified various sub-tasks for this particular repair project that included
separate and discrete covered tasks, ostensibly because they were integral to the more general
repair requirement and met the four-part test. It failed, however, to identify pipefitting as a
separate task even though it too was an essential part of safely repairing the line.
Second, Enterprise argued that it would be overly broad to treat each separate and discrete
element of performing pipeline repairs, such as joining threaded pipe, as a covered task. The
company contended that if covered tasks were defined so broadly, it would “bootstrap all
pipeline maintenance and repair activities as ‘covered tasks’” and render the third prong of the
four-part test “superfluous.”20
I disagree. Any maintenance or repair task must satisfy all four prongs of the test in
§ 195.501(b) to be considered a covered task. Certain common tasks involved in making safe
repairs would not be considered covered tasks if they failed to satisfy each of the other three
prongs. For example, reading a voltmeter is a common task involved in making many pipeline
repairs, but since it is not an operations and maintenance activity, it would not constitute a
covered task in and of itself.
PHMSA explained in the preamble of the final rule that the four-part test should not be read too
broadly. It used the activity of welding as an example of an activity that might sometimes be a
covered task and sometimes not, depending upon the circumstances under which it was
performed. If welding were performed as an operations and maintenance activity, such as when
installing a weld-over sleeve to repair an anomaly, then it would be considered a covered task.
On the other hand, if welding were performed during the fabrication of new installations, then it
would not be an operations and maintenance activity and therefore not a covered task.
21
In similar fashion, pipefitting may be considered a covered task under certain circumstances but
not others. Just because pipefitting should have been included as a covered task in performing
the repair in question does not mean that it always needs to be in all situations. I therefore reject
Respondent’s argument that the inclusion of pipefitting as a covered task in meeting the
requirements of § 195.422 in this case renders the third prong of the test overly broad or
“superfluous.”
Third, Enterprise argued that PHMSA had been inconsistent in its treatment of pipefitting as a
covered task. The company cited a Notice of Amendment case, Valero Terminaling and
Distribution Company, CPF No. 4-2008-5003M, as showing that PHMSA had not consistently
pipeline safety regulations. While the positions of industry groups are useful and relevant in the interpretation of
PHMSA regulations, they are not determinative.
20 Closing at 7.
21 64 FR 46860.



8
considered the joining of threaded pipe as a covered task under Part 195.22 Enterprise claimed
that the case “addressed an alleged failure of Valero to include joining of threaded pipe as a
covered task under Part 195 in its OQ manual.”23 However, PHMSA alleged only that Valero
needed to finalize the development of internal training modules for the task of threaded pipe; the
case did not address the need to identify pipefitting as a covered task.24 While Valero stated that
it did not consider the joining of threaded pipe to be a covered task, it did not explain which
element of the four-part test was not met, and the communications between PHMSA and Valero
did not address this issue.
In rebuttal, the agency cited several other Notices of Amendment (NOAs) issued to other
pipeline operators on this issue. While Enterprise noted that none of these NOAs set forth a legal
rationale for PHMSA’s position,
25 these NOAs still demonstrate that the agency has considered
both pipefitting26 generally and the assembly of threaded connections27 specifically as covered
tasks for other operators and has required operators to be more specific than simply listing
repairs as a single task.
In summary, upon consideration of all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a) by failing to properly identify pipefitting, when
performed during pipeline repairs as required by § 195.422, as a covered task in its written
qualification program. In reaching this conclusion, I reject Enterprise’s various arguments that
pipefitting does not satisfy the third prong of the four-part test used to determine whether a
particular activity qualifies as a covered task.
I would note this finding does not reach the larger issue of whethe
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 57825