{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125023","title":"ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-06-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.303(c), 195.402(c)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125023.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125023.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125023","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125023","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.303(c),  195.402(c)(3). The case was opened on 2012-06-07 and is reported as closed as of 2013-05-21. Proposed civil penalty: $143,700. Assessed civil penalty: $143,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125023_Final Order_05062013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_Final%20Order_05062013.pdf\n\n420125023_Final Order_05062013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_Final%20Order_05062013_text.pdf\n\n420125023_NOPV PCP PCO_06072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06072012.pdf\n\n420125023_NOPV PCP PCO_06072012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06072012_text.pdf\n\n420125023_Operator Response to Notice_07092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07092012.pdf\n\n420125023_NOPV PCP PCO_06072012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nAnd\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 7, 2012\nMr. Kevin C. Bodenhamer\nSr. Vice President, Liquid Pipeline Operations\nEnterprise Crude Pipeline LLC\n1100 Louisiana St.\nHouston, Texas 77210-4735\nCPF 4-2012-5023\nDear Mr. Bodenhamer:\nOn multiple occasions between February 21 and March 21, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code investigated a failure that occurred on the Enterprise 8-inch Crude (EPCO) pipeline\nsystem. The failure occurred at the Cushing East Terminal in Lincoln County, Oklahoma and\nresulted in the release of approximately 600 barrels of crude oil.\nAs a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. §195.303 Risk-based alternative to pressure testing older hazardous liquid and\ncarbon dioxide pipelines.\n(c) The program under paragraph (a) of this section shall provide for pressure\ntesting for a segment constructed of electric resistance-welded (ERW) pipe and\nlapwelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970 susceptible to longitudinal seam failures\n\n\n\nas determined through paragraph (d) of this section. The timing of such pressure\ntest may be determined based on risk classifications discussed under paragraph (b)\nof this section. For other segments, the program may provide for use of a magnetic\nflux leakage or ultrasonic internal inspection survey as an alternative to pressure\ntesting and, in the case of such segments in Risk Classification A, may provide for\nno additional measures under this subpart.\nEnterprise failed to perform a pressure test as required on the pre-1970 ERW pipe\ndesignated as the Shell 8-inch pipeline.\nPHMSA was provided an informational package from Enterprise’s (EPCO) that was used\nto provide information for the metallurgical lab (Email from Neal Burrell dated March 8,\n2011). In this package, within the Background Information section, EPCO noted that\nthey did not have a Date, Test Pressure, and Duration of the most recent hydrostatic test.\nIn an email dated January 27, 2012, EPCO again notes that pressure tests have not been\nperformed. Finally, in Accident Report, 20110206, G5, paragraph 6, Enterprise notes\nthat a pressure test has not been performed.\n2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations.\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nEnterprise failed to prepare and follow a procedure for performing a ‘line wash’\n(purging) over to the Cushing West terminal. Failure to have and follow a procedure for\nthis operations and maintenance task resulted in Enterprise lining up the delivery piping\nsystem incorrectly. This misalignment resulted in the delivery being pumped against a\nclosed valve and a subsequent failure of the system resulting in a release of\napproximately 600 barrels of crude oil.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $143,700 as follows:\n2\n\n\n\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $43,700\n2 $100,000\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2012-5023 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n3\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC (EPCO) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirement to ensure the compliance of\nEPCO with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regards to Item Number 1, EPCO shall complete a hydrostatic test of all sections of\nthe 8” crude pipeline that have not had a subpart E pressure test. EPCO may not\noperate any section of the pipeline that has not had a pressure test.\n2. Aforementioned to be accomplished within 30 days following receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that EPCO maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes\nto pipeline infrastructure.\n4\n\n420125023_Final Order_05062013_text.pdf\n\nMAY 6, 2013\nMr. Michael A. Creel\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5023\nDear Mr. Creel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $143,700. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. Kevin C. Bodenhamer, Senior Vice President, EHS&T, Enterprise Crude\nPipelines, LLC\nMr. Rodrick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nEnterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5023\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February 21 to March 21, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), investigated a failure that occurred on a crude oil pipeline known as the 8” Shell Line and\noperated by Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), at the Cushing East\nTerminal in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, on February 21, 2011 (Failure). The Failure resulted in\na release of approximately 600 barrels of crude oil.\nEnterprise, a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, operates a pipeline system\nconsisting of approximately 4,700 miles of crude oil pipelines and 11 million barrels of crude oil\nstorage. The system gathers and transports crude oil primarily to refineries, centralized storage\nterminals and connecting pipelines in Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, and to crude oil\nterminal facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma, and Midland, Texas.1\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 7, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Enterprise had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.303 and 195.402 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $143,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.\nEnterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated July 9, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested one of the allegations of violation, offered additional information in response to the\nNotice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 http://www.enterpriseproducts.com (last accessed 1/10/ 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c), which states:\n§ 195.303 Risk-based alternative to pressure testing older hazardous\nliquid and carbon dioxide pipelines.\n(a) . . .\n(c) The program under paragraph (a) of this section shall provide for\npressure testing for a segment constructed of electric resistance-welded\n(ERW) pipe and lapwelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970 susceptible to\nlongitudinal seam failures as determined through paragraph (d) of this\nsection. The timing of such pressure test may be determined based on risk\nclassifications discussed under paragraph (b) of this section. For other\nsegments, the program may provide for use of a magnetic flux leakage or\nultrasonic internal inspection survey as an alternative to pressure testing\nand, in the case of such segments in Risk Classification A, may provide\nfor no additional measures under this subpart.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c) by failing to pressure test\nthe pre-1970 pipe segment designated as the 8” Shell Line that failed on February 21, 2011. The\nsegment was constructed of electric resistance-welded (ERW) pipe manufactured prior to 1970\nand was therefore considered susceptible to longitudinal seam failures, as determined through\nparagraph (d) of § 195.303. The Notice further alleged that Enterprise had acknowledged it had\nnot performed a pressure test on the line.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation but provided the following information\nabout the Failure:\nThe 8” Shell crude pipeline was approximately 150 feet in length and\nconfigured to transport product from an Enterprise operated manifold at\nCushing East storage to a Shell operated manifold also located on Cushing\nEast storage property. At the time of the release, this pipeline was idle.\nImmediately following the release, the pipeline was purged, capped on one\nend and securely isolated from the rest of the system. Enterprise had no\nbusiness plans to return this line to service, thus did not initiate actions to\ncomplete a hydrostatic test of the 8” Shell crude pipeline following this\nincident. On June 21, 2012, the 8” Shell crude pipeline was completely\ndisconnected, excavated and removed from the ground in its entirety.2\nEnterprise requested that since the line had been idle at the time of the Failure and the company\nhad taken the line completely out of service following the 2011 accident, this allegation should\nbe eliminated and the proposed compliance order rescinded.\n2 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nI disagree that this Item should be eliminated. If a pipeline has not been abandoned in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.59, then it is considered to be active and an operator must\nensure that the pipeline complies with all applicable requirements of Part 195. Considering that\nEnterprise did not abandon this line until after the Failure, Enterprise failed to comply with the\nregulations applicable to active lines for more than five years, or 1,825 days.3 Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c) by\nfailing to properly conduct a pressure test of a pipe segment constructed of ERW pipe\nmanufactured prior to 1970.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year. . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) . . .\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare and\nfollow a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Enterprise failed to prepare and follow a procedure for properly performing a “line wash” or\npurging of the pipeline that failed on February 21, 2011. The Notice further alleged that the\ncompany’s failure to have such a procedure in place on the day of the Failure resulted in\nEnterprise lining up the delivery piping system incorrectly and oil being pumped against a closed\nvalve, which led to the Failure and subsequent spill.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but provided information that it had\ndeveloped the requisite procedures after receiving the Notice. Given the expense it had incurred\nin developing procedures for its Cushing East and Cushing West facilities, Enterprise requested\nthat the civil penalty be removed or reduced. Since this argument relates to the assessment of a\ncivil penalty, it is addressed in the Assessment of Penalties section below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to have and follow a manual of written procedures for the\noperation, maintenance, and repair of its pipeline system.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (June 7, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 4.\n\n\n\n4\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $143,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c), for failing to perform a pressure test on its 8” Shell Line. As discussed\nabove, I found that Enterprise failed to properly conduct a pressure test of this pipe segment\nconstructed of ERW pipe manufactured prior to 1970. Respondent requested mitigation of the\nproposed civil penalty on the basis that the pipeline had been idled for an unspecified period of\ntime prior to the Failure and that the company had subsequently abandoned and removed the line\nfrom the ground following the accident. Notwithstanding these contentions, the Respondent was\nclearly out of compliance at the time of the Failure and had been for over five years. As for the\ngravity of the violation, Respondent compromised pipeline integrity within a terminal facility\nand 600 barrels of crude oil were released. Finally, the Respondent was aware of its regulatory\nresponsibility but failed to make any attempt at compliance until after the Failure occurred.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $43,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), for failing to prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for\nconducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. As discussed above, I found that Enterprise failed to have and follow a procedure\nfor performing a “line wash” of the 8” Shell Line that failed within the Cushing Terminal.\nEnterprise argued for mitigation of the proposed civil penalty under basis that the company had\nmade good-faith efforts to develop the myriad procedures required to bring its facilities into\ncompliance and that it had willingly assumed those costs. Notwithstanding Respondent’s\nremedial efforts following the Failure, this violation was a causal factor in the accident. By not\nhaving the required written procedures in place to conduct a line wash properly, the resulting\nmisalignment allowed product to flow into the wrong pipeline and precipitated the release.\nIn its Response, Enterprise offered no reason as to why it did not have a procedure in place.\n\n\n\n5\nTherefore, I find it appropriate, given the causal nature of the noncompliance, to uphold the\nproposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $143,700.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $143,700 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has\nindicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address the cited violation:\nWith respect to the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c) (Item 1), Enterprise provided\ninformation that it had abandoned the 8” Shell Line.\nAccordingly, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 1 are not included in this\nOrder.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\n\n\n\n6\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":23592}