{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420175036M","title":"ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-11-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(e)(1), 195.505(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175036m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175036m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175036m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420175036M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(e)(1),  195.505(i). The case was opened on 2017-11-02 and is reported as closed as of 2019-05-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420175036M_Closure Letter_05162019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Closure%20Letter_05162019.pdf\n\n420175036M_Closure Letter_05162019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Closure%20Letter_05162019_text.pdf\n\n420175036M_Notice Of Amendment_11022017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Notice%20Of%20Amendment_11022017.pdf\n\n420175036M_Notice Of Amendment_11022017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Notice%20Of%20Amendment_11022017_text.pdf\n\n420175036M_Operator Response to Notice_02282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02282018.pdf\n\n420175036M_Order Directing Amendment_03272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03272019.pdf\n\n420175036M_Order Directing Amendment_03272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03272019_text.pdf\n\n420175036M_Closure Letter_05162019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 16, 2019\nA.J. Teague\nDirector and Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2017-5036M\nDear Mr. Teague:\nOn January 9 through May 24, 2017, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted\nan on-site pipeline safety inspection of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC procedures in\nHouston, Texas. As a result of the inspection, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise)\nwas issued a Notice of Amendment on November 2, 2017, which proposed amendment of\nprocedures. Based on Enterprise’s response to the Notice of Amendment received on March 01,\n2018, an Order Directing Amendment was issued on March 27, 2019.\nEnterprise submitted its amended procedures on April 24, 2019. My staff reviewed the amended\nprocedures and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment have been\ncorrected.\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\n\n420175036M_Order Directing Amendment_03272019_text.pdf\n\nMarch 27, 2019\nMr. A. J. Teague\nDirector and Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2017-5036M\nDear Mr. Teague:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case to\nyour subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. It makes findings of inadequate\nprocedures and requires that Enterprise amend certain of its operating and maintenance\nprocedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided\nunder 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 and Engineering,\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\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 Products Operating LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2017-5036M\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom January 9 through May 24, 2017, 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 procedures for operations and\nmaintenance of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (EPO or Respondent), in Houston, Texas.\nEPO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Partners, LP (Enterprise).1 Enterprise conducts\nsubstantially all of its operations through EPO, including more than 50,000 miles of pipeline and\napproximately 260 million barrels of hazardous liquid storage capacity.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 2, 2017, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s Operations\nand Maintenance program and proposed requiring EPO to amend its procedures to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities.3\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, EPO responded to the Notice by\nletter dated February 28, 2018 (Response). The company contested the allegations of\n1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP, Form 10-Q submitted to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, available at\nhttp://services.corporate-\nir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWti\nM2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVkJFUmlacGNHRm5aVDB4TWpNNU5UYzJOaVp6ZFdKemF\nXUTlOVGM9JnR5cGU9MiZmbj1FbnRlcnByaXNlUHJvZHVjdHNQYXJ0bmVyc0wucGRm (last accessed March\n25, 2019).\n2 Enterprise Products Partners, LP, website, available at https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-\nprofile (last accessed March 25, 2019).\n3 The Notice was issued in conjunction with a separate Notice of Probable Violation (CPF No. 4-2017-5035). A\nFinal Order in that case will be issued separately.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5036\nPage 2\ninadequacy, provided a summary of its position, and included information concerning changes\nthat it had made to its procedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUACY\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49\nC.F.R. § 195.505(i), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . . .\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly\nmodifies the program after the administrator or state agency has verified\nthat it complies with this section. Notifications to PHMSA may be\nsubmitted by electronic mail to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov,\nor by mail to ATTN: Information Resources Manager DOT/PHMSA/OPS,\nEast Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,\nDC 20590.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures for determining what constitutes a significant\nchange to EPO’s Operator Qualification (OQ) program were inadequate. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that during the 2017 PHMSA inspection, PHMSA discovered certain inadequacies in\nEPO’s procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPO failed to notify PHMSA on two\noccasions after making changes that should have been considered significant and provided\nnotification to PHMSA on four occasions after making changes that Respondent did not consider\nsignificant. First, in 2011, EPO failed to notify PHMSA after making a change to its OQ\nprogram that was designated as significant under the company’s own OQ Addendum. Second, in\n2010, EPO failed to notify PHMSA of several changes to the company’s OQ program, including\nremoval of T2 training and qualification methods for various tasks that the company did not\nconsider significant. The changes made in 2010 should have been considered significant in light\nof PHMSA’s December 7, 2009 advisory bulletin, ADB-09-03.4 Additionally, EPO notified\nPHMSA in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 of changes that the operator did not consider significant.\nIn its Response, EPO contested these allegations and provided information concerning its\npractice of notifying PHMSA about changes to the company’s OQ program. Respondent stated\nthat, beginning in 2011, it simply submitted an updated copy of the company’s OQ program to\nPHMSA on an annual basis “to ensure that the Company complied with the requirement to\n4 74 Fed. Reg. 64123 (Dec. 7, 2009).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5036\nPage 3\ncommunicate significant changes.” Respondent further argued that the term “significant” was\nvague and that 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 did not require operators to define that term in its OQ\nprocedures. However, Respondent amended Appendix D – Glossary of its OQ program to\ninclude a definition of “significant” and submitted the revised Appendix to the Director.\nHaving considered the record, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard\nto 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(i) because they failed to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility by\nclarifying when Respondent must notify PHMSA after making significant changes to the OQ\nprogram. The Director reviewed Respondent’s amended Appendix D and found the amendments\nacceptable. Accordingly, no further action is required on Respondent’s part and this item is now\nclosed.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49\nC.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1), which states, in relevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) What are the risk factors for establishing an assessment schedule\n(for both the baseline and continual integrity assessments)? (1) An operator\nmust establish an integrity assessment schedule that prioritizes pipeline\nsegments for assessment (see paragraphs (d)(1) and (j)(3) of this section).\nAn operator must base the assessment schedule on all risk factors that reflect\nthe risk conditions on the pipeline segment. The factors an operator must\nconsider include, but are not limited to: . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures for Integrity Management (IM) were\ninadequate because the risk factors being considered may not reflect the actual risk conditions on\nthe pipeline segment at a particular time. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s IM\nProcedure 2-01L, Line Pipe Risk Analysis, required EPO’s Pipeline Integrity Engineering\nManager, Pipeline Integrity Engineering Supervisor, or Pipeline Integrity Engineer to review, on\nan annual basis, the risk results for line pipe segments in which data for the “significant” risk\nfactors have changed. The Notice further alleged that the same procedure required the same\nEPO personnel to update the risk results once every five years. The Notice maintained that\nprocedure 2-01L was inadequate because it did not reflect EPO’s actual practice of updating its\nrisk-ranking analysis at least once per year.\nIn its Response, EPO argued that OPS had misinterpreted Procedure 2-01L, and requested that\nPHMSA withdraw Item 2. Specifically, Respondent argued that Procedure 2-01L contained two\ndifferent requirements for updating risk analyses. First, Respondent argued that section 2-01.2.4,\nsubsection 2-01.2.1.15 of the procedure required EPO to conduct an annual review of all risk\n5 I note that the numbering system used in Respondent’s Procedure 2-01L is not intuitive and is difficult to\nreference specifically. While each first-level section heading follows the convention “2-01.1,” “2-01.2,” etc., and\neach second-level heading the convention “2-01.2.1,” “2-01.2.2,” etc., all lower-level headings fail to follow a\ncognizant enumeration system. For instance, each new third-level heading begins with “2-01.2.1.1,” regardless of\nthe second-level heading under which it is placed. Accordingly, there are numerous subsections of Procedure 2-01L\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5036\nPage 4\nresults for which a “significant risk factor” had changed. Respondent noted that a change to a\nsignificant risk factor might result in EPO updating other risk results under subsection 2-01.2.1.3\nof the procedure. Second, Respondent contended that subsection 2-01.2.1.4 required EPO to\nevaluate the need to review and update risk analysis scores at least once every five years,\nindependent of any changes to significant risk factors. According to EPO, the two review\ntimelines (annual significant-change-driven and five-year change-independent) were clearly\nstated and in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e).\nHaving considered the record, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to assure safe\noperation because they failed to state clearly that a significant risk-factor change required EPO to\nupdate its risk analysis results; subsection 2-01.2.1.3 stated only that EPO “may” update the\nanalysis. To ensure pipeline safety, Procedure 2-01L must clearly outline the company’s two\nrisk-analysis review timelines, especially with respect to the requirement for a change-\nindependent review of risk results at least once every five years. This clarification will ensure\nthat EPO personnel are aware that a yearly review of risk analyses is required, and how the five-\nyear review would be performed under Procedure 2-01L.\nHaving considered the record, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard\nto 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e) because they failed to clarify when EPO personnel were required to\nconduct various reviews and updates of risk analyses.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nAccordingly, I find that EPO’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, EPO is ordered to\nmake the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must:\n1. Amend its Procedure 2-01L to clarify its practice of conducting annual updates of\nrisk analyses where a significant risk factor has changed and of conducting a review\nand update of all risk-analysis scores at least once every five years, regardless of any\nchange to risk factors.\n2. Submit the amended procedures to the Director within 30 days following receipt\nof this Order.\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 $200,000, 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\nsharing the same third-level headings cited in this Order; however, all such citations refer to text under section 2-\n01.2.4.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5036\nPage 5\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Order\nto the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,\nSE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief\nCounsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of this Order Directing\nAmendment by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order remain in effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nMarch 27, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420175036M_Notice Of Amendment_11022017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 2, 2017\nMr. Bacon Graham\nExecutive Vice President\nEnterprise Products Operating\n1100 Louisiana Street,\nHouston Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2017-5036M\nDear Mr. Graham:\nOn January 09, 2017 through May 24, 2017, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\ninspected Enterprise Products Operating LLC (Enterprise) procedures for Operations and\nmaintenance in Houston, Texas.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nEnterprise’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n\n\n\n1. 195.505– Qualification Program\n(i) Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to\nAfter December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency participating\nunder 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if operator significantly modifies the program after the\nadministrator or state agency has verified that it complies with this section.\nNotifications to PHMSA may be submitted by electronic mail to\ninformationResourcesManager@dot.gov or by mail to ATTN: Information\nResources Manager DOT/PHMSA? OPS, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New\nJersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.\nEnterprise Products Operating LLC failed on separate occasions in its process for notifying\nPHMSA of significant changes made to the OQ program. First instance was a failure in\ncommunicating across changes operator considered significant in 2011(3/16/2011) as shown on\nthe OQ Addendum within the plan. while on the other hand operator notified PHMSA in 2012,\n2013, 2014 and 2016 of changes that operator did not consider significant (referenced within\nAddendum as not considered significant). Another failure of the process as seen in the Addendum\nwithin the OQ plan are records of some changes made within the plan that were not considered\nsignificant such as the removal of T2 training and qualification methods for various tasks (on\n03/25/2010) that have been clarified in PHMSA’s ADB-09-0349 and should have been considered\nsignificant.\nThese occurrences (notifications for non-significant changes and no notifications for significant\nchanges) can be attributed to the lack of definition and clarification within the plan for what\nEnterprise considers to be significant changes. Enterprise has failed to update its OQ program to\ninclude a definition or clarification for what constitutes a significant change and has not\nincorporated into its OQ plan clarifications set forth as significant in PHMSA’s ADB 2009-0349\nand required in 192.805 (i).\n2. 195.452 – Pipeline Integrity management in high consequence areas\n(e) (1) What are the risk factors for establishing an assessment schedule (for both the\nbaseline and continual integrity assessments)?\nAn operator must establish an integrity assessment schedule that prioritizes pipeline\nsegments for assessment (see paragraphs (d)(1) and (j)(3) of this section). An operator\nmust base the assessment schedule on all risk factors that reflect the risk conditions\non the pipeline segment. The factors the operator must consider include but are not\nlimited to:\n2\n\n\n\nIn reviewing Enterprise’s Line Pipe Risk Analysis procedure (2-01L) in section 2-01.2.4 under the\ntopic of “updating risk assessment” it shows that all risk factors being considered may not reflect\nthe risk conditions on the pipeline segment at any given time as required under the pipeline safety\nrules. Reason being that while the procedure states under 2-01.2.1.1 of the section that “The\nPipeline Integrity Engineering Manager, Pipeline Integrity Engineering Supervisor, or Pipeline\nIntegrity Engineer is responsible, on an annual basis, for reviewing the risk results on line pipe\nsegment(s) in which data for the “significant” risk factors have changed. The same section of the\nprocedure under 2-01.2.1.4 then states that “the need to update the risk results once every 5 years\nwould be evaluated by either the Pipeline Integrity Engineering Manager, Pipeline Integrity\nEngineering Supervisor, or Pipeline Integrity Engineer”. This procedure needs to be updated to\nreflect the need to update risk results in which data for the significant risk factors are discovered\nto have changed after the risk analysis within a more reasonable time frame and that reflects the\ncurrent practice (Enterprise’s personnel stated the updates are actually carried out more frequently\nthan stated in the procedure).\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. 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).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\n3\n\n\n\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise Products Operating LLC maintain documentation of\nthe safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Terri Binns, Acting Director,\nSouthwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence\nconcerning this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2017-5036M and, for each document you submit,\nplease provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nFrank Causey\nActing Director, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":23354}