{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125008M","title":"ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-03-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.132, 195.205, 195.264, 195.307, 195.310, 195.405, 195.436.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125008m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125008m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125008m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125008M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.132,  195.205,  195.264,  195.307,  195.310,  195.405,  195.436. The case was opened on 2012-03-12 and is reported as closed as of 2015-07-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125008M_ NOA_ 03122012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_%20NOA_%2003122012_text.pdf\n\n420125008M_Closure_07092015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_Closure_07092015.pdf\n\n420125008M_Closure_07092015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_Closure_07092015_text.pdf\n\n420125008M_NOA_03122012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_NOA_03122012.pdf\n\n420125008M_Operator Response and Request for Time Extension _05182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Time%20Extension%20_05182012.pdf\n\n420125008M_Order Directing Amendment_08012013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_08012013.pdf\n\n420125008M_Order Directing Amendment_08012013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125008M/420125008M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_08012013_text.pdf\n\n420125008M_Order Directing Amendment_08012013_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 1, 2013\nMr. Michael A. Creel, CEO\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5008M\nDear Mr. Creel:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC,\namend certain of its operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures\nhas been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action\nwill be closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by certified mail is deemed effective\nupon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rodrick M. Seeley, Southwest Region Director, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nEnterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC, )\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________ )\n) CPF No. 4-2012-5008M\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nOn April 11-15, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enterprise Crude\nPipelines, LLC, (Enterprise or Respondent) in Cushing, Oklahoma. Enterprise is a subsidiary of\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP, which operates 50,700 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquid\ncrude oil, refined products and petrochemical pipelines.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 12, 2012, a Notice of Amendment (NOA). The Notice\nalleged certain inadequacies in Enterprise’s plans or procedures and proposed, in accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, requiring Respondent to amend its procedures.\nOn May 18, 2012, Enterprise responded to Items 1 through 7 of the NOA (Response).\nRespondent also requested an extension until November 18, 2012, to respond completely to Item\n4 of the Notice. PHMSA granted an extension until August 20, 2012, for Enterprise to complete\nthe response. A meeting was held with representatives of Enterprise, at which Enterprise agreed\nto make additional revisions to its procedures. By letter dated August 20, 2012, Enterprise\ntimely submitted a revised response (Supplemental Response).\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s procedures. Respondent did not contest\nthe allegations but submitted amended procedures to address the inadequacies. I have reviewed\nthe revised procedures and considered the following factors: relevant available pipeline safety\n1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP, available at http://www.enterpriseproducts.com/corpProfile/businessProfile.shtm\n(last accessed May 6, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\ndata; whether the plans are adequate for Enterprise’s unique facilities and in their particular\nlocations; the reasonableness of the procedures; and the extent to which the procedures\ncontribute to public safety. Upon such review of the revised procedures under 49 C.F.R. §\n190.237, I find as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. §\n195.132, which states:\n§ 195.132 Design and construction of aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) Each aboveground breakout tank must be designed and\nconstructed to withstand the internal pressure produced by the hazardous\nliquid to be stored therein and any anticipated external loads.\n(b) For aboveground breakout tanks first placed in service after\nOctober 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section requires\none of the following:\n(1) Shop-fabricated, vertical, cylindrical, closed top, welded steel\ntanks with nominal capacities of 90 to 750 barrels (14.3 to 119.2 m3) and\nwith internal vapor space pressures that are approximately atmospheric\nmust be designed and constructed in accordance with API Specification\n12F.\n(2) Welded, low-pressure (i.e., internal vapor space pressure not\ngreater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)), carbon steel tanks that have wall shapes\nthat can be generated by a single vertical axis of revolution must be\ndesigned and constructed in accordance with API Standard 620.\n(3) Vertical, cylindrical, welded steel tanks with internal pressures at\nthe tank top approximating atmospheric pressures (i.e., internal vapor\nspace pressures not greater than 2.5 psig (17.2 kPa), or not greater than the\npressure developed by the weight of the tank roof) must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with API Standard 650.\n(4) High pressure steel tanks (i.e., internal gas or vapor space\npressures greater than 15 psig (103.4 kPa)) with a nominal capacity of\n2000 gallons (7571 liters) or more of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) must\nbe designed and constructed in accordance with API Standard 2510.\nThe Notice alleged that Enterprise’s procedures were inadequate with respect to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.132. Specifically, it alleged that Respondent’s Williams Energy Services, ES-\n3610, Atmospheric Steel Tanks Procedure and its Duke Energy Field Services, LPG Truck\nTerminal – Design and Installation Procedure did not specify the appropriate version of the API\nstandards that have been incorporated by reference into the regulation. Additionally, its EGS E-\n6300, Storage Tank Guideline & Specification Procedure may conflict with the Williams Energy\nService ES-3610 Procedure and the requirements of API 650 due to its included exceptions,\nsubstitutions, modifications, and additions.\nIn its Response, Enterprise stated that its Williams Energy Services ES-3610, Duke Energy Field\nServices, LPG Truck Terminal – Design and Installation, and EGS E-6300 Storage Tank\n\n\n\n3\nGuideline & Specification procedures had been archived and that it had consolidated and\ndeveloped a new set of procedures, STD.5600, Welded Tanks for Oil Storage, which defined the\nminimum requirements for the design, materials, construction, and inspection of\naboveground storage tanks per API 650 Welded Tanks for Oil Storage, 11th Edition,\nAddendum 1.\nHowever, Paragraph 5.8.5.3 of STD.5600 still does not mandate that emergency venting for\nPHMSA-regulated breakout tanks constructed to API Standard 650 must be done in accordance\nwith the requirements of API Standard 2000.2 Since the procedure does not reference API\nStandard 2000, Respondent’s STD.5600 procedure for emergency venting of PHMSA-regulated\nbreakout tanks is inadequate to ensure that it is done in accordance with API Standard 2000.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures for design and construction of aboveground\nbreakout tanks are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system. Respondent must\namend its STD.5600 procedure to require that the emergency venting for PHMSA-regulated\nbreakout tanks constructed to API Standard 650 must be done in accordance with the\nrequirements of API Standard 2000.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. §\n195.205, which states:\n§ 195.205 Repair, alteration and reconstruction of aboveground\nbreakout tanks that have been in service.\n(a) Aboveground breakout tanks that have been repaired, altered, or\nreconstructed and returned to service must be capable of withstanding\nthe internal pressure produced by the hazardous liquid to be stored\ntherein and any anticipated external loads.\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this\nsection requires the following for the tanks specified:\n(1) For tanks designed for approximately atmospheric pressure\nconstructed of carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-\nrefrigerated and tanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor\nStandard 12C, repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in\naccordance with API Standard 653.\n(2) For tanks built to API Specification 12F or API Standard 620,\nthe repair, alteration, and reconstruction must be in accordance with the\ndesign, welding, examination, and material requirements of those\nrespective standards.\n(3) For high pressure tanks built to API Standard 2510, repairs,\nalterations, and reconstruction must be in accordance with API 510.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with respect to § 195.205 in\n2 Paragraph 5.8.5.3. of Respondent’s STD.5600 states: “Emergency venting requirements are satisfied if the tank is\nequipped with a weak roof-to-shell attachment (frangible joint) in accordance with 5.10.2.6 or if the tank is equipped\nwith pressure relief devices meeting the requirements specified in API Standard 2000 for emergency venting.”\n\n\n\n4\nseveral respects. First, it alleged that the company’s procedure EGS E-6320 presented certain\nexceptions, substitutions, and modifications to the requirements of API 653 and referenced an\nincorrect version of API 653 (API 653, Second Edition, December 1995). Second, the\ndocument allegedly did not provide any engineering justification for the exceptions and\nmodifications, so it was not clear whether an equivalent level of safety had been achieved.\nThird, it alleged that in addition to EGS E-6320, Enterprise presented a new procedure,\nSTD.9503, DOT Breakout Tank Integrity Testing, Revision No. 0.0. that at the time of the\ninspection had not been implemented but failed to specify the correct version of the referenced\nAPI 653. A version of Section 8.2, External Inspection Frequency, presented after the inspection\nstates: “As an alternative, an owner/operator may establish the external inspection interval using\nrisk-based inspection (RBI) procedures in accordance with API 653, 580, and 581. According to\nAPI 653, Appendix E – Technical Inquiries, Question 653-I-02/03, ‘RBI can be applied to\ninternal inspection intervals only.’” Finally, Section 8.4 presents a table of internal inspection\nintervals. This table is from a more recent version of API 653 not incorporated by reference into\nPart 195.\nIn its Response, Enterprise stated that its procedure EGS E-6320 had been archived and replaced\nby STD.9503, Inspection and Testing of Atmospheric and Low-Pressure DOT Breakout Tanks,\nRevision 4.0, April 2012. Enterprise addressed the issue about STD.9503 by stating, “Enterprise\nprocedure, STD.9503, Inspection and Testing of Atmospheric and Low Pressure Breakout Tanks,\nSection 8.4, provides guidance on RBI for internal inspection only and does not utilize RBI for\nexternal inspection purposes.” Additionally, the Response stated that the table the Notice\nreferenced as part of EGS E-6320 had now been archived.\nSince EGS E-6320 has been archived, the issue of an engineering justification for the exceptions\nand modifications in the document is moot. It appears that the revision that was submitted for\nSTD.9503 addresses the issue that was noted in the inspection that RBI could only be applied to\ninternal inspection intervals.\nAlthough Enterprise responded that it had archived the table that was part of EGS E-6320, the\nNotice was referring to the table found in Section 8.4 of STD.9503. Enterprise removed the table\nfrom the revision of STD.9503 that was submitted in its Response but the remaining procedure\nstill does not adequately describe the methodologies used by the operator to determine the\ninternal inspection intervals for its breakout tanks. Additionally, the paragraph on risk-based\ninspections does not adequately explain how Enterprise is employing this methodology to\ndetermine internal inspection intervals, including when this methodology will be employed, the\nalgorithm, the factors considered, the weighting, how the floor corrosion rates are determined,\nthe minimum thickness of the floor plates, whether a stress analysis must be performed, etc.\nIn addition, STD.9503 refers to a checklist in Appendix A, paragraph 8.1, Periodic Monthly\nInspections, but the checklist does not address problems with the concrete ringwall, such as those\naddressed in C.1.1.1 of the Tank In-Service Checklist in API Standard 653. The presence of\nstanding water may not be the only indication of drainage problems that should be identified by\nthe routine in-service inspection included under C.1.1.1 and C.1.1.5. The STD.9503 Appendix A\nchecklist also does not require inspection for pain failures, pitting, and corrosion, manifold\n\n\n\n5\npiping, fire suppression components, or buildup of vegetation and evidence of settlement.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures providing for the repair, alteration and\nreconstruction of aboveground breakout tanks that have been returned to service are inadequate\nto ensure safe operation of its pipeline system.\nRespondent must revise STD.9503, Inspection and Testing of Atmospheric and Low-Pressure\nDOT Breakout Tanks, to specify the procedures that will be used to determine the internal\ninspection intervals for breakout tanks, the criteria for determining the methodology that will be\nused, how a change of methodology will be done, and procedures for performing similar service\nassessments. Enterprise must also specify its procedures for using the risk-based methodology\ndescribed in API Standard 653, Paragraph 6.4.3, including, but not limited to: the specific risk\nfactors that must be evaluated; the risk algorithm; the weighting of the factors; how the floor\ncorrosion rate will be determined; the minimum allowable thickness of the floor plates; whether\na stress analysis must be performed; the positions responsible for administering, reviewing, and\napproving the risk-based program; and the required qualifications for persons administering,\nreviewing, and approving the risk-based program. Enterprise must also modify its procedures to\naddress all of the items that need to be inspected during routine in-service inspections and must\ndevelop procedures that ensure accurate determination of the shell corrosion rate.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. §\n195.264, which states, in relevant part:\n§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency\nventing or pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout\ntanks.\n(a) A means must be provided for containing hazardous liquids in\nthe event of spillage or failure of an aboveground breakout tank.\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this\nsection requires the following for the aboveground breakout tanks\nspecified:\n(1) For tanks built to API Specification 12F, API Standard 620, and\nothers (such as API Standard 650 or its predecessor Standard 12C), the\ninstallation of impoundment must be in accordance with the following\nsections of NFPA 30:\n(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in\naccordance with section 4.3.2.3.2; and\n(ii) Impoundment by drainage to a remote impounding area must be\ninstalled in accordance with section 4.3.2.3.1.\n(2) For tanks built to API 2510, the installation of impoundment\nmust be in accordance with section 5 or 11 of API 2510 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3).\n(c) Aboveground breakout tank areas must be adequately protected\nagainst unauthorized entry. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with respect to § 195.264(b)\n\n\n\n6\nand (c). Specifically, it alleged that various Enterprise procedures did not refer to the correct\nversion of the standards incorporated by reference into § 195.264(b). For example, ES-3610,\nAtmospheric Steel Tanks, did not require that the company’s impoundment procedures comply\nwith the requirements of the correct version of NFPA 30. As for 195.264(c), Enterprise security\nprocedure, Procedures Manual for Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Operations, Maintenance, and\nEmergencies, Security, Section 1309 does not require adequate protection against unauthorized\nentry.\nIn its Response, to address the issues pertaining to § 195.264(b), Enterprise stated that\nprocedures ES-3610, Atmospheric Steel Tanks, EGS E-6302, Storage Tank Guidelines &\nSpecifications, and ES E-3610, Storage Tank Guidelines & Specifications have been archived\nand replaced with STD.5602, Tank Farm Design. Enterprise also revised STD.5602 to specify\nthe version of NFPA 30, the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, incorporated by\nreference into Part 195, and eliminated the incorrect paragraph references. Per the requirements\nof § 195.264(c), Enterprise revised the Procedures Manual for Hazardous Liquids Pipeline\nOperations, Maintenance, and Emergencies, Section 1309 – Security, to address protection from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry in breakout tank areas. Enterprise’s adoption of STD.5602\nresponse addresses the issues pertaining to ES-3610 and EGS E-3610 by consolidating the\nconfusing array of overlapping procedures intended to address the requirements of 195.264(b)\nand (c). However, STD.5602 makes no reference to the site drainage requirements in API\nStandards 650 and 653. Additionally, Enterprise partially addressed the issue of security\nmeasures provided against unauthorized entry by revising the Procedures Manual for Hazardous\nLiquids Pipeline Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies, Section 1309 – Security. The\nadditional concerns were addressed as part of Item 7. Accordingly, I find that some of\nEnterprise’s procedures for impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency venting or\npressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks remain inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline system. Enterprise must revise STD.5602 to include the design\nrequirements for breakout tank site drainage requirements of API Standards 650 and 653.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. §\n195.307, which states:\n§ 195.307 Pressure testing aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) For aboveground breakout tanks built into API Specification 12F\nand first placed in service after October 2, 2000, pneumatic testing must\nbe in accordance with section 5.3 of API Specification 12F (incorporated\nby reference, see § 195.3).\n(b) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 620 and\nfirst placed in service after October 2, 2000, hydrostatic and pneumatic\ntesting must be in accordance with section 7.18 of API Standard 620\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\n(c) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 650\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) and first placed in service after\nOctober 2, 2000, testing must be in accordance with Section 5.2 of API\nStandard 650 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\n\n\n\n7\n(d) For aboveground atmospheric pressure breakout tanks\nconstructed of carbon and low alloy steel, welded or riveted, and non-\nrefrigerated and tanks built to API Standard 650 or its predecessor\nStandard 12C that are returned to service after October 2, 2000, the\nnecessity for the hydrostatic testing of repair, alteration, and\nreconstruction is covered in section 10.3 of API Standard 653.\n(e) For aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 and\nfirst placed in service after October 2, 2000, pressure testing must be in\naccordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,\nDivision 1 or 2.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with respect to five separate\nprovisions of § 195.307. First, the Notice alleged that the Enterprise procedure for testing API\n12F and 12D tanks, Williams Energy Services procedure ES-3610, Atmospheric Steel Tanks,\nSection 6, Testing and Inspections, required a pressurized air test but did not state that testing\nwould be done in accordance with Section 5.3 of API 12F, as required by § 195.307(a). Second,\nit alleged that the same Enterprise procedure for testing API 620 tanks, required a hydrostatic test\nbut did not state that the testing would be performed in accordance with Section 7.18 of API 620,\nas required by § 195.307(b). Third, it alleged that the same Enterprise procedures for testing\nAPI 650 tanks and E-6320, Section 10.3, Tank Inspection Repair, Alteration, and\nReconstruction, required a hydrostatic test but did not state that the testing would be performed\nin accordance with Section 5.3 of API 650, as required by § 195.307(c). Fourth, it alleged that\nEnterprise procedure E-6320, Section 10.3, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and\nReconstruction required a hydrostatic test but did not state that the testing would be done in\naccordance with Section 12.3 of API 653, as required by § 195.307(d). Fifth, it alleged that\nRespondent did not present a procedure that testing for an API 2510 tank would be done\naccording to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, as required by § 195.307(e).\nIn its Response, Enterprise stated that it had developed a new set of procedures to address the\ninadequacies cited in the Notice. First, it provided a copy of its new procedure, STD.5607,\nSpecification for Shop Welded Tanks for Storage of Production Liquids, which purported to\ninclude a reference to Section 5.3 of API 12F, in accordance with 195.307(a). Second, it\nprovided a new procedure, STD.5608, Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure\nStorage Tanks, which included a reference to Section 7.18 of API 620, in accordance with\n§ 195.307(b). Third, it provided a new consolidated procedure, STD.5600, Welded Tanks for Oil\nStorage, which included a reference to Section 5.2 of API 650, in accordance with § 195.307(c).\nFourth, Enterprise contended that STD.5605, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and\nReconstruction, included a reference to section 12.3 of API 653, that met the requirements of\n§ 195.307(d). Fifth, it provided a new procedure, STD.5004, Design and Construction of\nLiquefied Petroleum Gas Installation, which purported to include a reference to API 2510, in\naccordance with § 195.307(e).\nEnterprise’s responses pertaining to STD.5600 and STD.5608 adequately address the issues in\nitems 2 and 3 above. Accordingly, I find that some of Enterprise’s procedures for pressure\ntesting aboveground breakout tanks are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline\nsystem.\n\n\n\n8\nRespondent must make revisions to STD.5607 to specify that aboveground tanks built to API\nSpecification 12F must be tested in accordance with Section 5.3 of the standard. Respondent\nmust modify STD.5605 to specifically require that hydrostatic testing for tanks repaired, altered,\nor reconstructed be done according to the requirements of API Standard 653 as well as the\nadditional Enterprise requirements specified in this procedure. Respondent must specify in its\nSTD.5004 that pressure testing for API Standard 2510 vessels should be done according to the\nrequirements of Section VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, as required under\n§ 195.307(e).\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R. §\n195.310, which states:\n§ 195.310 Records.\n(a) A record must be made of each pressure test required by this\nsubpart, and the record of the latest test must be retained as long as the\nfacility tested is in use.\n(b) The record required by paragraph (a) of this section must include:\n(1) The pressure recording charts;\n(2) Test instrument calibration data;\n(3) The name of the operator, the name of the person responsible for\nmaking the test, and the name of the test company used, if any;\n(4) The date and time of the test;\n(5) The minimum test pressure;\n(6) The test medium;\n(7) A description of the facility tested and the test apparatus;\n(8) An explanation of any pressure discontinuities, including test\nfailures, that appear on the pressure recording charts;\n(9) Where elevation differences in the section under test exceed 100\nfeet, a profile of the pipeline that shows the elevation and test sites over the\nentire length of the test section; and\n(10) Temperature of the test medium or pipe during the test period.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with respect to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.310 because the company’s Williams Energy Services Procedure ES-3610,\nAtmospheric Steel Tanks did not specify retention requirements for hydrostatic testing records.\nIn addition, it alleged that Enterprise’s Procedure, E-6320, Tank Inspection Repair, Alteration,\nand Reconstruction required the maintenance of test records but was not adequately specific as to\nthe documentation requirements. The specific records listed in § 195.310(b) apply to all pressure\ntests but Enterprise’s tank inspection procedures fail to include adequate documentation and\nretention requirements for tank testing records.\nIn its Response, Enterprise stated that “the Williams Energy Services procedure, ES-3610,\nAtmospheric Steel Tanks and the EPCO, Inc., procedure EGS E-6302, Storage Tank Guidelines\n& Specifications have been archived. STD.0250, Project Records Management has been\n\n\n\n9\ndeveloped. Appendix A of this procedure specifies the hydrostatic testing records required for\nretention in accordance with § 195.301(b).”\nI have reviewed Respondent’s revised procedures but find they are still inadequate. Appendix A,\nProject Records Index, shows one entry titled “Pressure Testing – Aboveground Breakout\nTanks,” but it does not specify the records that must be maintained. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent’s procedures for records retention under 49 C.F.R. § 195.310 are inadequate to\nensure safe operation of its pipeline system. Enterprise must revise STD.0250 to specify that the\ndocumentation and records retention requirements of § 195.310 apply to hydrostatic testing\nrecords for breakout tanks.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.405, which states:\n§ 195.405 Protection against ignitions and safe access/egress\ninvolving floating roofs.\n(a) After October 2, 2000, protection provided against ignitions\narising out of static electricity, lightning, and stray currents during\noperation and maintenance activities involving aboveground breakout\ntanks must be in accordance with API Recommended Practice 2003,\nunless the operator notes in the procedural manual (§ 195.402(c)) why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice\n2003 is not necessary for the safety of a particular breakout tank.\n(b) The hazards associated with access/egress onto floating roofs of\nin-service aboveground breakout tanks to perform inspection, service,\nmaintenance or repair activities (other than specified general\nconsiderations, specified routine tasks or entering tanks removed from\nservice for cleaning) are addressed in API Publication 2026. After October\n2, 2000, the operator must review and consider the potentially hazardous\nconditions, safety practices and procedures in API Publication 2026 for\ninclusion in the procedure manual (§ 195.402(c)).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with respect to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.405(a) and (b). First, the Notice alleged that Enterprise was unable to provide a\nprocedure stating how the requirements of § 195.405(a) would be met and no reference to API\nRP 2003 was found in the Enterprise procedures. (API RP 2003 is referenced by API 653 but\ncompliance with API RP 2003 should be specifically required by Respondent’s breakout tank\nprocedures.) Second, it alleged that Enterprise had no procedures stating how the requirements\nof § 195.405(b) would be met, nor was there any reference to API RP 2026 in the company’s\nprocedures.\nIn its Supplemental Response, Enterprise stated that “Enterprise Procedures Manual for\nHazardous Liquids Pipeline Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies, Section 1307 –\nBreakout Tanks, references both API RP 2026 and API RP 2003.” The company contended that\nits procedures stated that Enterprise would take into consideration the potential hazards, safety\n\n\n\n10\npractices and procedures outlined in API RP 2026 and protect against ignitions in accordance\nwith API RP 2003.\nProcedure 1307, however, was not presented to PHMSA during the inspection. Additionally,\nEnterprise’s procedure STD.5600, Welded Tanks for Oil Storage, or STD.9503, Inspection and\nTesting of Atmospheric and Low-Pressure DOT Breakout Tanks, does not refer to either API RP\n2026 or AP RP 2003, and there is no cross-reference to Procedure 1307. Without any sort of\ncross-reference between the two procedures, it is unlikely that an Enterprise employee would\nknow that these additional breakout tank requirements were included in the company’s\noperations and maintenance procedures.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures for protection against ignitions and safe\naccess/egress involving floating roofs are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline\nsystem. Enterprise must modify all applicable procedures, including STD.5600 and STD.9503 to\nreference Section 1307 – Breakout Tanks of Enterprise’s Procedures Manual for Hazardous\nLiquids Pipeline Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies and to reference the need to comply\nwith the requirements of § 195.405(a) and (b).\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities by failing to develop procedures addressing 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.436, which states:\n§ 195.436 Security of facilities.\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and\nbreakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with respect to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.436, insofar as Enterprise’s procedural manual, Procedures Manual for\nHazardous Liquids Pipeline Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies, Security, Section 1309,\ndid not require protection of company facilities from vandalism and unauthorized entry or\nindicate how such protection would be provided.\nIn its Supplemental Response, Respondent stated, “Enterprise’s Procedures Manual for\nHazardous Liquids Pipeline Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies, Section 1309 –\nSecurity, was revised to address protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry per the\nrequirements of § 195.436.”\nI have reviewed Enterprise’s revised procedures, but they still do not specify the criteria used to\ndetermine when a valve must be fenced or when chaining alone is deemed sufficient. The\nprocedure also does not specify the company’s criteria for determining when a pump station,\nterminal, or breakout tank area will be manned. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s\nprocedures for the security of its facilities under 49 C.F.R. § 195.436 are inadequate to ensure\nsafe operation of its pipeline system. Respondent must revise Section 1309 to specify the\npotential security measures employed by Enterprise, the criteria used to determine appropriate\nsecurity measures, the positions responsible for implementing security measures, and security\n\n\n\n11\ninspection requirements.\nFor the reasons discussed above in Items 1-7, I find that Enterprise’s procedures are inadequate\nto assure safe operations. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237,\nRespondent is ordered to:\n1. Submit revised procedures pursuant to Items 1 through 7 above, within 45 days following\nreceipt of this Order. All documentation demonstrating compliance with the Order must\nbe submitted to the Director.\n2. It is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n(1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues and/or referral to\nthe Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Order Directing Amendment. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same\naddress. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of\nthis Order Directing Amendment by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of\nthe issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Order Directing\nAmendment are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420125008M_Closure_07092015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 9, 2015\nMr. Kevin Bodenhamer\nSenior Vice President, Liquid Pipeline Operations\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\nP. O. Box 4735\nHouston, TX 77210-4735\nCPF 4-2012-5008M\nDear Mr. Bodenhamer:\nOn various dates in 2011 and 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nEnterprise Crude Oil Pipelines LLC (Enterprise) Operations and Maintenance procedures in\nCushing, OK. As a result of the inspection, Enterprise was issued a Notice of Amendment on\nMarch 12, 2012. After the revisions submitted by Enterprise were found inadequate to address\nthe issues identified by PHMSA, an Order Directing Amendment (ODA) was issued on August\n1, 2013.\nEnterprise submitted the last series of revisions on February 17, 2015. A review of these\nrevisions by the PHMSA Southwest Region found that they adequately address the requirements\nin the ODA.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":36712}