# ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420125023_Final Order_05062013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_Final%20Order_05062013.pdf

420125023_Final Order_05062013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_Final%20Order_05062013_text.pdf

420125023_NOPV PCP PCO_06072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06072012.pdf

420125023_NOPV PCP PCO_06072012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06072012_text.pdf

420125023_Operator Response to Notice_07092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125023/420125023_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07092012.pdf

420125023_NOPV PCP PCO_06072012_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
And
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 7, 2012
Mr. Kevin C. Bodenhamer
Sr. Vice President, Liquid Pipeline Operations
Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC
1100 Louisiana St.
Houston, Texas 77210-4735
CPF 4-2012-5023
Dear Mr. Bodenhamer:
On multiple occasions between February 21 and March 21, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United
States Code investigated a failure that occurred on the Enterprise 8-inch Crude (EPCO) pipeline
system. The failure occurred at the Cushing East Terminal in Lincoln County, Oklahoma and
resulted in the release of approximately 600 barrels of crude oil.
As a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violation(s) are:
1. §195.303 Risk-based alternative to pressure testing older hazardous liquid and
carbon dioxide pipelines.
(c) The program under paragraph (a) of this section shall provide for pressure
testing for a segment constructed of electric resistance-welded (ERW) pipe and
lapwelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970 susceptible to longitudinal seam failures



as determined through paragraph (d) of this section. The timing of such pressure
test may be determined based on risk classifications discussed under paragraph (b)
of this section. For other segments, the program may provide for use of a magnetic
flux leakage or ultrasonic internal inspection survey as an alternative to pressure
testing and, in the case of such segments in Risk Classification A, may provide for
no additional measures under this subpart.
Enterprise failed to perform a pressure test as required on the pre-1970 ERW pipe
designated as the Shell 8-inch pipeline.
PHMSA was provided an informational package from Enterprise’s (EPCO) that was used
to provide information for the metallurgical lab (Email from Neal Burrell dated March 8,
2011). In this package, within the Background Information section, EPCO noted that
they did not have a Date, Test Pressure, and Duration of the most recent hydrostatic test.
In an email dated January 27, 2012, EPCO again notes that pressure tests have not been
performed. Finally, in Accident Report, 20110206, G5, paragraph 6, Enterprise notes
that a pressure test has not been performed.
2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(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 failed to prepare and follow a procedure for performing a ‘line wash’
(purging) over to the Cushing West terminal. Failure to have and follow a procedure for
this operations and maintenance task resulted in Enterprise lining up the delivery piping
system incorrectly. This misalignment resulted in the delivery being pumped against a
closed valve and a subsequent failure of the system resulting in a release of
approximately 600 barrels of crude oil.
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 $143,700 as follows:
2



Item number PENALTY
1 $43,700
2 $100,000
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 4-2012-5023 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
3



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC (EPCO) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirement to ensure the compliance of
EPCO with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regards to Item Number 1, EPCO shall complete a hydrostatic test of all sections of
the 8” crude pipeline that have not had a subpart E pressure test. EPCO may not
operate any section of the pipeline that has not had a pressure test.
2. Aforementioned to be accomplished within 30 days following receipt of the Final
Order.
3. It is requested (not mandated) that EPCO maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs 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.
4

420125023_Final Order_05062013_text.pdf

MAY 6, 2013
Mr. Michael A. Creel
President and Chief Executive Officer
Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2012-5023
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 $143,700. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the
Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. 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. Kevin C. Bodenhamer, Senior Vice President, EHS&T, Enterprise Crude
Pipelines, LLC
Mr. Rodrick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5023
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From February 21 to March 21, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), investigated a failure that occurred on a crude oil pipeline known as the 8” Shell Line and
operated by Enterprise Crude Pipelines, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), at the Cushing East
Terminal in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, on February 21, 2011 (Failure). The Failure resulted in
a release of approximately 600 barrels of crude oil.
Enterprise, a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, operates a pipeline system
consisting of approximately 4,700 miles of crude oil pipelines and 11 million barrels of crude oil
storage. The system gathers and transports crude oil primarily to refineries, centralized storage
terminals and connecting pipelines in Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, and to crude oil
terminal facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma, and Midland, Texas.1
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 7, 2012, 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 violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.303 and 195.402 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $143,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.
Enterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated July 9, 2012 (Response). The company
contested one of the allegations of violation, offered additional information in response to the
Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 http://www.enterpriseproducts.com (last accessed 1/10/ 2013).



2
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. § 195.303(c), which states:
§ 195.303 Risk-based alternative to pressure testing older hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines.
(a) . . .
(c) The program under paragraph (a) of this section shall provide for
pressure testing for a segment constructed of electric resistance-welded
(ERW) pipe and lapwelded pipe manufactured prior to 1970 susceptible to
longitudinal seam failures as determined through paragraph (d) of this
section. The timing of such pressure test may be determined based on risk
classifications discussed under paragraph (b) of this section. For other
segments, the program may provide for use of a magnetic flux leakage or
ultrasonic internal inspection survey as an alternative to pressure testing
and, in the case of such segments in Risk Classification A, may provide
for no additional measures under this subpart.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c) by failing to pressure test
the pre-1970 pipe segment designated as the 8” Shell Line that failed on February 21, 2011. The
segment was constructed of electric resistance-welded (ERW) pipe manufactured prior to 1970
and was therefore considered susceptible to longitudinal seam failures, as determined through
paragraph (d) of § 195.303. The Notice further alleged that Enterprise had acknowledged it had
not performed a pressure test on the line.
In its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation but provided the following information
about the Failure:
The 8” Shell crude pipeline was approximately 150 feet in length and
configured to transport product from an Enterprise operated manifold at
Cushing East storage to a Shell operated manifold also located on Cushing
East storage property. At the time of the release, this pipeline was idle.
Immediately following the release, the pipeline was purged, capped on one
end and securely isolated from the rest of the system. Enterprise had no
business plans to return this line to service, thus did not initiate actions to
complete a hydrostatic test of the 8” Shell crude pipeline following this
incident. On June 21, 2012, the 8” Shell crude pipeline was completely
disconnected, excavated and removed from the ground in its entirety.2
Enterprise requested that since the line had been idle at the time of the Failure and the company
had taken the line completely out of service following the 2011 accident, this allegation should
be eliminated and the proposed compliance order rescinded.
2 Response at 2.



3
I disagree that this Item should be eliminated. If a pipeline has not been abandoned in
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.59, then it is considered to be active and an operator must
ensure that the pipeline complies with all applicable requirements of Part 195. Considering that
Enterprise did not abandon this line until after the Failure, Enterprise failed to comply with the
regulations applicable to active lines for more than five years, or 1,825 days.3 Accordingly,
after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c) by
failing to properly conduct a pressure test of a pipe segment constructed of ERW pipe
manufactured prior to 1970.
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. . .
(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 with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of
this part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare and
follow a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Enterprise failed to prepare and follow a procedure for properly performing a “line wash” or
purging of the pipeline that failed on February 21, 2011. The Notice further alleged that the
company’s failure to have such a procedure in place on the day of the Failure resulted in
Enterprise lining up the delivery piping system incorrectly and oil being pumped against a closed
valve, which led to the Failure and subsequent spill.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but provided information that it had
developed the requisite procedures after receiving the Notice. Given the expense it had incurred
in developing procedures for its Cushing East and Cushing West facilities, Enterprise requested
that the civil penalty be removed or reduced. Since this argument relates to the assessment of a
civil penalty, it is addressed in the Assessment of Penalties section below.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to have and follow a manual of written procedures for the
operation, maintenance, and repair of its pipeline system.
3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (June 7, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 4.



4
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $143,700 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,700 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c), for failing to perform a pressure test on its 8” Shell Line. As discussed
above, I found that Enterprise failed to properly conduct a pressure test of this pipe segment
constructed of ERW pipe manufactured prior to 1970. Respondent requested mitigation of the
proposed civil penalty on the basis that the pipeline had been idled for an unspecified period of
time prior to the Failure and that the company had subsequently abandoned and removed the line
from the ground following the accident. Notwithstanding these contentions, the Respondent was
clearly out of compliance at the time of the Failure and had been for over five years. As for the
gravity of the violation, Respondent compromised pipeline integrity within a terminal facility
and 600 barrels of crude oil were released. Finally, the Respondent was aware of its regulatory
responsibility but failed to make any attempt at compliance until after the Failure occurred.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $43,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), for failing to prepare and follow a manual of written procedures for
conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. As discussed above, I found that Enterprise failed to have and follow a procedure
for performing a “line wash” of the 8” Shell Line that failed within the Cushing Terminal.
Enterprise argued for mitigation of the proposed civil penalty under basis that the company had
made good-faith efforts to develop the myriad procedures required to bring its facilities into
compliance and that it had willingly assumed those costs. Notwithstanding Respondent’s
remedial efforts following the Failure, this violation was a causal factor in the accident. By not
having the required written procedures in place to conduct a line wash properly, the resulting
misalignment allowed product to flow into the wrong pipeline and precipitated the release.
In its Response, Enterprise offered no reason as to why it did not have a procedure in place.



5
Therefore, I find it appropriate, given the causal nature of the noncompliance, to uphold the
proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $143,700.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $143,700 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has
indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address the cited violation:
With respect to the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(c) (Item 1), Enterprise provided
information that it had abandoned the 8” Shell Line.
Accordingly, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 1 are not included in this
Order.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including



6
any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final
Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is
waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 23592