{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420175008M","title":"ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-03-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.202.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175008m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175008m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175008m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420175008M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENTERPRISE CRUDE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.202. The case was opened on 2017-03-30 and is reported as closed as of 2021-04-02. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420175008M_Closure Letter_04022021_(15-149775S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Closure%20Letter_04022021_(15-149775S).pdf\n\n420175008M_Closure Letter_04022021_(15-149775S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Closure%20Letter_04022021_(15-149775S)_text.pdf\n\n420175008M_Notice of Amendment_03302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_03302017.pdf\n\n420175008M_Notice of Amendment_03302017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_03302017_text.pdf\n\n420175008M_Operator Response to Notice_06152017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06152017.pdf\n\n420175008M_Order Directing Amendment_08112020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_08112020.pdf\n\n420175008M_Order Directing Amendment_08112020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175008M/420175008M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_08112020_text.pdf\n\n420175008M_Closure Letter_04022021_(15-149775S)_text.pdf\n\nELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 2, 2021\nGraham Bacon\nExecutive Vice President, Operations & Engineering\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\nP. 0. Box 4735\nHouston, Texas 77210-47352\nCPF 4-2017-5008M\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nFrom March 4, 2015 through October 9, 2015, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC’s\n(Enterprise) construction procedures for its Rancho Pipeline system between Sealy and Houston,\nTexas. On March 30, 2017, PHMSA issued to Enterprise a Notice of Amendment (NOA), and\nsubsequently issued an Order Directing Amendment (ODA) on August 11, 2020 to address\noutstanding concerns.\nEnterprise submitted its last series of revisions on November 6, 2020. A review of these revisions\nfound that they adequately address the requirements in 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,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Nhan Truong, Engineer, Pipeline Compliance, Western Region\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, NVTRUONG@eprod.com\n\n420175008M_Notice of Amendment_03302017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 30, 2017\nMr. Graham Bacon\nGroup Senior Vice President, Operations & EHS&T\nEnterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\n4-2017-5008M\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nBetween March 4 and October 9, 2015, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nEnterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC (Enterprise) procedures for constructing the Rancho Pipeline\nbetween Sealy, TX to Houston, TX.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacy found within\nEnterprise’s procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written\nspecifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this part.\nThe Enterprise Engineering and Specifications STD .8706 Bending and Alignment (Rev\nNo. 0.1, June 2012), does not provide adequate requirements for performing field bends of\nspiral-weld seam pipe. Enterprise was found to be constructing the Rancho Pipeline using\nspiral seam pipe but the specifications for bending did not address this type of pipe.\nEnterprise’s procedure provides detailed specifications for bending longitudinal-weld seam\npipe but is silent on requirements for spiral-weld pipe actually being used to construct the\nRancho pipeline.\n\n\n\nSome of the specifications that must be addressed in the Enterprise’s procedure include:\nposition of bending shoes, whether the shoes can press on the spiral-weld seam, test bends,\netc.… Enterprise must amend its procedure to meet the requirements in §195.202 with\nrelation to its use of spiral-weld seam pipe.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance\nProceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this\nNotice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49\nC.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended\nprocedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by\nwritten request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in\nyour amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures) and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to 4-2017-\n5008M and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever\npossible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n2\n\n420175008M_Order Directing Amendment_08112020_text.pdf\n\nAugust 11, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: rfowler@eprod.com\nMr. W. Randall Fowler\nDirector, Co-Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002-5227\nRe: CPF No. 4-2017-5008M\nDear Mr. Fowler:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that Enterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC, a\nsubsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, amend certain written procedures. When the\namendment of procedures is completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by electronic\nmail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Graham W. Bacon, Executive Vice President, Operations & Engineering, Enterprise\nProducts Partners, LP, gbacon@eprod.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2017-5008M\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n_____________________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom March 4 through October 9, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the construction procedures for the\nRancho Pipeline of Enterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent), in Texas.\nEnterprise, a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, operates the Rancho Pipeline, a 36-\ninch diameter crude oil line stretching from Jones Creek, Texas to Echo Park Terminal outside of\nGalena Park, Texas.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 30, 2017, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s written\nprocedures and proposed requiring Enterprise to amend its procedures to ensure safe operation of\nits pipeline facilities.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time, Enterprise Products Partners, LP, on behalf\nof Enterprise, responded to the Notice by letter dated June 15, 2017 (Response). In its Response,\nEnterprise did not contest the allegation that its procedures were inadequate and submitted copies\nof its amended procedures. After reviewing the amended procedures and engaging in additional\ndiscussions with PHMSA to clarify certain aspects of the amended procedures, Enterprise\nsubmitted an additional set of revised procedures in April 2019.2 After reviewing these\nprocedures, on September 26, 2019, the Director determined that the revised procedures were\ninadequate to ensure safe operation of Enterprise’s pipeline facilities. Enterprise contested the\nallegation that its revised procedures were inadequate and provided additional information by\nelectronic mail dated October 18, 2019 (Supplemental Response). Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Report), at 1 (Mar. 30, 2017) (on file with PHMSA).\n2 Enterprise Engineering and Specifications STD.8706 Bending and Alignment (STD.8706) REV.2.2 (Apr. 2019)\n(on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5008M\nPage 2\nFINDING OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to\n49 C.F.R. §195.202, which states:\n§195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s written construction procedures were inadequate to assure\nsafe operation of the pipeline facility because they failed to confirm construction in accordance\nwith comprehensive written specifications or standards consistent with Part 195 requirements.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the Enterprise Engineering and Specifications STD.8706\nBending and Alignment (STD.8706) procedure did not provide adequate requirements for\nperforming field bends of spiral-weld seam pipe. Although Enterprise was constructing the\nRancho Pipeline using spiral seam pipe, the Notice alleged that its written specifications for\nbending did not specifically address bending this type of pipe. Instead, Enterprise’s procedures\napplied to all types of pipe generally and only specifically mentioned specifications for bending\nlongitudinal-weld seam pipe. The Notice proposed that Enterprise revise its procedures with\nregard to bending spiral-weld pipe to include, at a minimum, position of bending shoes, whether\nthe shoes can press on the spiral-weld seam, and test bends.\nIn its Response, Enterprise amended Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of STD.8706 to exclude spiral-weld\n(also referred to as helically-weld) pipe from the generally-applicable weld seam and bending\nshoe positioning requirements.3 Enterprise also amended Section 2.4 to include a table limiting\nthe allowable minimum bend radii and applicable tolerances when using spiral-weld source\npipe.4 Finally, Enterprise added Section 2.6 to address material properties and the potential need\nfor producing and testing prototype bends.5 During follow-up discussions, the Region informed\nEnterprise that it believed its amended procedures still did not adequately address spiral seam\n3 Response, at 2. Revised Section 2.2. states: “All overbends, sags and sidebends shall be made to provide an\nadequate amount of slack or flexibility in the pipeline and shall conform to engineering design tolerances. Where no\nsuch tolerances were provided, the Contractor shall consult with Company to seek guidance prior to proceeding. Weld\nseams shall be positioned as near as practicable to the neutral axis of the bend. Helically-welded pipe is an exception\nto this weld seam position requirement.” Revised Section 2.3 states: “Each bend shall be made using Company\napproved bending machines having full encirclement bending shoes with a neoprene or urethane lining to produce a\nsmooth, symmetrical bend, unless specified otherwise by Company. If the pipe is internally coated, the bearing\nsurfaces of the mandrel shall be constructed to avoid permanently marking or damaging the internal coating. Position\nbending shoes and mandrels so as not to apply a point load to the seam weld and minimize stresses in the seam weld.\nHelically-welded pipe is an exception to this bending shoe positioning requirement. No appreciable stretching or\nthinning of the pipe wall thickness shall be permitted.”\n4 Id., at 2-3.\n5 Id., at 3. Section 2.6 states: “(1) Bends used in sour gas pipelines should meet the hardness requirements of NACE\nMR0175 in the as-bent condition. Bends exposed to or used in low temperature service should meet toughness and\ntensile requirements in the as-bent condition. (2) The Company may request that prototype bends are made and tested\nto ensure that a particular field bending procedure produces bends meeting the material property requirements.”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5008M\nPage 3\npipe. In response, Enterprise submitted a new set of revised procedures (STD.8706 REV2.2).\nEnterprise contended that STD.8706 REV2.2 adequately covered position of bending shoes,\nwhether shoes can press on the spiral-weld seams, and test bends.6\nAfter additional discussions with the operator, the Region found Enterprise’s written procedures,\nas amended, were still inadequate to ensure safe operation of the pipeline system. Specifically,\nthe Region noted that the revised procedures did not adequately address spiral seam pipe since\nSections 3.2 and 3.3 excepted helically-welded pipe.7\nIn its Supplemental Response, Enterprise stated that STD.8706 REV2.2 “did not take exception\nto” helically-welded pipe.8 Rather, “in order to prevent confusion, it provides exemptions from\napplying the unavoidable weld seam and bending shoe positioning requirements to helically-\nwelded pipe when those requirements are specifically applicable to longitudinally welded pipe.”9\nEnterprise contended that these amended procedures were consistent with industry standards in\nASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8, and therefore comply with § 195.202.\n49 C.F.R. §195.202 requires that each pipeline system be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of\nPart 195. The construction of the Rancho Pipeline involved spiral seam pipe that required\nbending; therefore, Enterprise was required to construct the line in accordance with written\nspecifications and standards for bending spiral seam pipe consistent with Part 195. There are\nseveral specifications and standards governing bending of pipe, including: (1) ASME\nInternational (ASME) B31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and\nOther Liquids (2006); and (2) ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems\n(2007).10 While these standards are not incorporated by reference into Part 195, Respondent\ncited to them as evidence that its procedures are consistent with such standards. Further, Part\n195 includes regulations for bending pipe in §195.212. I will address each one separately below.\n6 Enterprise explained that STD.8706 REV2.2, Section 3.3(4) addressed position of bending shoes, stating that “[t]he\ncontractor shall use a consistent method of measurement when both marking the pipe in preparation for bending and\nin subsequent post-bending inspections” and Section 3.4(4) addressed whether shoes can press on the spiral-weld\nseam, noting that “[t]he bending operations shall be inspected to verify that the minimum allowable radius of the bend\nis not exceeded and that there is no wrinkling or excessive flattening of the pipe.” Finally, Section 3.6(2) discusses\ntest bends, stating that “[t]he Company Project Manager may request that prototype bends are made and tested to\nensure that a particular field bending procedure produces bends meeting the material property requirements.” Id.\n7 See Email from Region to Operator (Sept. 26, 2019) (on file with PHMSA) (noting that STD.8706 REV2.2, Section\n3.2(3) states that “[h]elically welded pipe is an exception to this weld seam position requirement,” and Section 3.3(4)\nstates that “[h]elically welded pipe is an exception to this bending shoe positioning requirement”).\n8 Supplemental Response, at 1.\n9 Id.\n10 Other standards, including NACE International (NACE) MR0175 Standard Material Requirements- Sulfide Stress\nCracking Resistant Metallic Materials for Oilfield Equipment (2009), also discuss bending of pipe. However, for\npurposes of brevity, additional standards are not discussed here.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5008M\nPage 4\nFirst, Respondent cited to the specifications for bending pipe in ASME B31.4, which are set\nforth in Section 434.7.1 Bends Made From Pipe. That section includes five subparts, only one of\nwhich specifically addresses longitudinal seams.11 The remaining four subparts do not specify\nseam type and instead provide general requirements. Second, the specifications for bending pipe\nin ASME B31.8 are set forth in Section 841.231. That section discusses maximum degrees of\nbending, appropriate wall thickness after bending, and other restrictions on bending of pipe, but\ndoes not specify seam type.\nFinally, the regulations governing bending pipe in Part 195 are set forth in §195.212. Except for\n§195.212(b)(3) which is specific to longitudinal weld pipe,12 §195.212 is silent on seam type.\nTherefore, because industry standards and regulations on bending pipe do not specify seam type\nfor each bending requirement, and instead only call out those specific to longitudinal seams, I do\nnot find it to be inconsistent that STD.8706 REV2.2 similarly does not specify seam types,\nunless specifically noted. Enterprise’s written specifications are not excluding helically-welded\npipe; instead, they simply have certain requirements for longitudinal-seam pipe that do not apply\nto helical-seam pipe. Despite this, given the unique safety concerns involving bending spiral-\nseam pipe,13 Enterprise must amend its procedures to include a section clarifying the\napplicability and scope of its field bending and alignment procedures with regard to seam type at\nthe beginning of STD.8706 REV2.2, Section 3.14\nIn her Region Recommendation, the Director also noted that several of Enterprise’s procedures\non bending pipe provide the Company Project Manager broad discretion in determining\napplicability of the procedures.15 For example, Section 3.3(5) states that “[a]n internal bending\nmandrel will be used when bending welded pipe unless approved by the Company Project\nManager” (emphasis added). Although providing flexibility to address unique circumstances is\nimportant, written procedures should specify, to the extent practicable, the conditions under\nwhich deviation is allowable. Therefore, Enterprise must further amend its procedures to explain\nwhen deviation is permissible by the Company Project Manager or other personnel. Further,\nEnterprise should document the reasons why the Company Project Manager chose to deviate\nfrom the written procedures, and should consider having this decision reviewable by his/her\nsupervisor prior to implementation.\n11 Section 434.7.1(e) states that “[w]hen bends are made in longitudinally welded pipe, the longitudinal weld should\nbe located on or near the neutral axis of the bend.”\n12 Specifically, §195.212(b)(3) requires that pipe containing a longitudinal weld, the longitudinal weld must be as\nnear as practicable to the neutral axis of the bend unless - (i) The bend is made with an internal bending mandrel; or\n(ii) The pipe is 12 3/4 in (324 mm) or less nominal outside diameter or has a diameter to wall thickness ratio less than\n70.\n13 Spiral-weld pipe presents unique issues because the configuration of the weld does not allow for the seam to be in\na purely neutral position in the bending machine, making it important for the operator to use specifications designed\nto ensure safe bending.\n14 Enterprise may wish to consider adding a new section to STD.8706 REV2.2 that specifically addresses helically-\nwelded pipe.\n15 Region Recommendation, at 2-3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5008M\nPage 5\nAccordingly, I find that Enterprise’s procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Enterprise is\nordered to make revisions to its procedures to address the adequacies noted above within 60 days\nof the issuance of the Order Directing Amendment.\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 and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $213,268, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each\nday the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nAmended Order Directing Amendment to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a\ncopy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days\nafter receipt of this Order Directing Amendment by Respondent. Any petition submitted must\ncontain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The\nterms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nAugust 11, 2020\n___________________________________ ______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":23680}