{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420155023","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":"2015-10-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.430(c), 195.432(b), 195.452(g)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155023.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155023.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155023","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420155023","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.430(c),  195.432(b),  195.452(g)(2). The case was opened on 2015-10-14 and is reported as closed as of 2016-10-21. Proposed civil penalty: $57,600. Assessed civil penalty: $57,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420155023_Final Order_10052016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155023/420155023_Final%20Order_10052016.pdf\n\n420155023_Final Order_10052016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155023/420155023_Final%20Order_10052016_text.pdf\n\n420155023_NOPV PCP_10142015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155023/420155023_NOPV%20PCP_10142015.pdf\n\n420155023_NOPV PCP_10142015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155023/420155023_NOPV%20PCP_10142015_text.pdf\n\n420155023_Operator Response to Notice_01182016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155023/420155023_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01182016.pdf\n\n420155023_Final Order_10052016_text.pdf\n\nOctober 5, 2016\nMr. A. J. Teague\nDirector and Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2015-5023\nDear Mr. Teague:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $57,600 against your subsidiary, Enterprise Crude\nPipeline, LLC. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement\naction closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by certified mail\nis deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rodrick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Graham Bacon, Executive Vice President, Operations & Engineering, Enterprise\nProducts Operating, LLC\nMr. Craig W. Murray, Group Senior Vice-President and General Counsel, Enterprise\nProducts Operating, LLC\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 )\nEnterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5023\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between August 2013 and May 23, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\na representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities\nand records of Enterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC (EP Crude or Respondent), in New Mexico,\nOklahoma, and Texas. Respondent, a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners LP,1 operates\n867 miles of crude-oil pipelines in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 14, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EP Crude had twice violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.432, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $57,600 for the alleged violations.\nThe warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to take appropriate\ncorrective action to address them or be subject to future potential enforcement action.\nEP Crude responded to the Notice by letter dated November 12, 2015 (Response). Respondent\ndid not contest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions. The\ncompany did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, EP Crude did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\n1 Enterprise Products Partners LP, Operations – Crude Oil Pipelines & Services, website:\nhttp://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/onshoreCrudePipeServ.shtm (last accessed on March 21, 2016).\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (October 13, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5023\nPage 2\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if\nstructural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity\nmay be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and\nmaintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of in-service atmospheric breakout tanks according to API Standard 653 (API\n653). Specifically, the Notice alleged that EP Crude’s inspection records for in-service breakout\nTank 1009 (Tank 1009), located in Cushing, Oklahoma, between 5/10-11/2005 and 4/5/2012,\nshowed Respondent had exceeded the five-year interval for conducting a visual external\ninspection of Tank 1009, as required by § 6.3.2.1 of API 653.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by exceeding the five-\nyear interval for conducting a visual external inspection of Tank 1009, as required by § 6.3.2.1 of\nAPI 653.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), as quoted above,\nby failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric breakout tanks according to\nAPI 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that EP Crude’s inspection records for Tank 1009, as\ndescribed above, between 5/10-11/2005 and 4/5/2012, showed Respondent had exceeded the\nfive-year interval for conducting an ultrasonic thickness inspection of the tank shell of Tank\n1009, as required by § 6.3.3.2 of API 653.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to perform an\nultrasonic thickness inspection of the tank shell of Tank 1009 once every five years, as required\nby § 6.3.3.2 of API 653.\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\n3 Section 195.432(b) has since been amended, but the version quoted here was in effect at the time of the Notice.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5023\nPage 3\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation\nwithout any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may\nrequire. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $57,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432(b), for exceeding the five-year interval for conducting a visual external inspection of\nTank 1009, as required by § 6.3.2.1 of API 653. EP Crude neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in, or elimination of, the proposed\npenalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $28,800 for violating § 195.432(b).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432(b), for exceeding the five-year interval for performing an ultrasonic thickness\ninspection of the tank shell of Tank 1009, as required by § 6.3.3.2 of API 653. EP Crude neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in, or\nelimination of, the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $28,800 for violating § 195.432(b).\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 $57,600.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Final Order.\nPayment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number\nfor this case), made payable to “U.S. Department of Transportation,” to the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMK-\n325), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n§ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions\nare contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\n4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2015-5023\nPage 4\nFailure to pay the $57,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2 and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.430 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s failure to have firefighting\nequipment stored in an easily accessible location at its Wildfire Station #2 in\nMidland County, Texas. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the station did not\nhave a fire extinguisher within the pump station fence perimeter;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s failure to follow API 653 in\nconducting routine monthly inspections of the physical integrity of Tank Nos.\n5610, 5611, 5617, 5618, 5650, 5653, and 5654 at its facilities in Midland County,\nTexas; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s failure to analyze all available\ninformation relating to the integrity of its Line S1 pipeline, including information\nregarding the presence of stress corrosion cracking.\nEP Crude presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n__________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12681}