# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Amendment

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

Official case documents:

420175036M_Closure Letter_05162019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Closure%20Letter_05162019.pdf

420175036M_Closure Letter_05162019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Closure%20Letter_05162019_text.pdf

420175036M_Notice Of Amendment_11022017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Notice%20Of%20Amendment_11022017.pdf

420175036M_Notice Of Amendment_11022017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Notice%20Of%20Amendment_11022017_text.pdf

420175036M_Operator Response to Notice_02282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02282018.pdf

420175036M_Order Directing Amendment_03272019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03272019.pdf

420175036M_Order Directing Amendment_03272019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175036M/420175036M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_03272019_text.pdf

420175036M_Closure Letter_05162019_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
May 16, 2019
A.J. Teague
Director and Chief Executive Officer
Enterprise Products Partners, LP
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2017-5036M
Dear Mr. Teague:
On January 9 through May 24, 2017, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted
an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC procedures in
Houston, Texas. As a result of the inspection, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise)
was issued a Notice of Amendment on November 2, 2017, which proposed amendment of
procedures. Based on Enterprise’s response to the Notice of Amendment received on March 01,
2018, an Order Directing Amendment was issued on March 27, 2019.
Enterprise submitted its amended procedures on April 24, 2019. My staff reviewed the amended
procedures and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment have been
corrected.
This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Mary. L. McDaniel P.E
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420175036M_Order Directing Amendment_03272019_text.pdf

March 27, 2019
Mr. A. J. Teague
Director and Chief Executive Officer
Enterprise Products Partners, LP
1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2017-5036M
Dear Mr. Teague:
Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case to
your subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. It makes findings of inadequate
procedures and requires that Enterprise amend certain of its operating and maintenance
procedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be
closed. Service of the Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Graham W. Bacon, Executive Vice President, Operations and Engineering,
Enterprise Products Partners, LP
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 Products Operating LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2017-5036M
a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
________________________________________________)
ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT
From January 9 through May 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the procedures for operations and
maintenance of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (EPO or Respondent), in Houston, Texas.
EPO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Partners, LP (Enterprise).1 Enterprise conducts
substantially all of its operations through EPO, including more than 50,000 miles of pipeline and
approximately 260 million barrels of hazardous liquid storage capacity.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated November 2, 2017, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance
with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s Operations
and Maintenance program and proposed requiring EPO to amend its procedures to ensure safe
operation of its pipeline facilities.3
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, EPO responded to the Notice by
letter dated February 28, 2018 (Response). The company contested the allegations of
1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP, Form 10-Q submitted to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, available at
http://services.corporate-
ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWti
M2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVkJFUmlacGNHRm5aVDB4TWpNNU5UYzJOaVp6ZFdKemF
XUTlOVGM9JnR5cGU9MiZmbj1FbnRlcnByaXNlUHJvZHVjdHNQYXJ0bmVyc0wucGRm (last accessed March
25, 2019).
2 Enterprise Products Partners, LP, website, available at https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-
profile (last accessed March 25, 2019).
3 The Notice was issued in conjunction with a separate Notice of Probable Violation (CPF No. 4-2017-5035). A
Final Order in that case will be issued separately.



CPF No. 4-2017-5036
Page 2
inadequacy, provided a summary of its position, and included information concerning changes
that it had made to its procedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has
waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF INADEQUACY
The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49
C.F.R. § 195.505(i), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . . .
(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency
participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly
modifies the program after the administrator or state agency has verified
that it complies with this section. Notifications to PHMSA may be
submitted by electronic mail to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov,
or by mail to ATTN: Information Resources Manager DOT/PHMSA/OPS,
East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures for determining what constitutes a significant
change to EPO’s Operator Qualification (OQ) program were inadequate. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that during the 2017 PHMSA inspection, PHMSA discovered certain inadequacies in
EPO’s procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPO failed to notify PHMSA on two
occasions after making changes that should have been considered significant and provided
notification to PHMSA on four occasions after making changes that Respondent did not consider
significant. First, in 2011, EPO failed to notify PHMSA after making a change to its OQ
program that was designated as significant under the company’s own OQ Addendum. Second, in
2010, EPO failed to notify PHMSA of several changes to the company’s OQ program, including
removal of T2 training and qualification methods for various tasks that the company did not
consider significant. The changes made in 2010 should have been considered significant in light
of PHMSA’s December 7, 2009 advisory bulletin, ADB-09-03.4 Additionally, EPO notified
PHMSA in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 of changes that the operator did not consider significant.
In its Response, EPO contested these allegations and provided information concerning its
practice of notifying PHMSA about changes to the company’s OQ program. Respondent stated
that, beginning in 2011, it simply submitted an updated copy of the company’s OQ program to
PHMSA on an annual basis “to ensure that the Company complied with the requirement to
4 74 Fed. Reg. 64123 (Dec. 7, 2009).



CPF No. 4-2017-5036
Page 3
communicate significant changes.” Respondent further argued that the term “significant” was
vague and that 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 did not require operators to define that term in its OQ
procedures. However, Respondent amended Appendix D – Glossary of its OQ program to
include a definition of “significant” and submitted the revised Appendix to the Director.
Having considered the record, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard
to 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(i) because they failed to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility by
clarifying when Respondent must notify PHMSA after making significant changes to the OQ
program. The Director reviewed Respondent’s amended Appendix D and found the amendments
acceptable. Accordingly, no further action is required on Respondent’s part and this item is now
closed.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard to 49
C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1), which states, in relevant part:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(e) What are the risk factors for establishing an assessment schedule
(for both the baseline and continual integrity assessments)? (1) An operator
must establish an integrity assessment schedule that prioritizes pipeline
segments for assessment (see paragraphs (d)(1) and (j)(3) of this section).
An operator must base the assessment schedule on all risk factors that reflect
the risk conditions on the pipeline segment. The factors an operator must
consider include, but are not limited to: . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures for Integrity Management (IM) were
inadequate because the risk factors being considered may not reflect the actual risk conditions on
the pipeline segment at a particular time. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s IM
Procedure 2-01L, Line Pipe Risk Analysis, required EPO’s Pipeline Integrity Engineering
Manager, Pipeline Integrity Engineering Supervisor, or Pipeline Integrity Engineer to review, on
an annual basis, the risk results for line pipe segments in which data for the “significant” risk
factors have changed. The Notice further alleged that the same procedure required the same
EPO personnel to update the risk results once every five years. The Notice maintained that
procedure 2-01L was inadequate because it did not reflect EPO’s actual practice of updating its
risk-ranking analysis at least once per year.
In its Response, EPO argued that OPS had misinterpreted Procedure 2-01L, and requested that
PHMSA withdraw Item 2. Specifically, Respondent argued that Procedure 2-01L contained two
different requirements for updating risk analyses. First, Respondent argued that section 2-01.2.4,
subsection 2-01.2.1.15 of the procedure required EPO to conduct an annual review of all risk
5 I note that the numbering system used in Respondent’s Procedure 2-01L is not intuitive and is difficult to
reference specifically. While each first-level section heading follows the convention “2-01.1,” “2-01.2,” etc., and
each second-level heading the convention “2-01.2.1,” “2-01.2.2,” etc., all lower-level headings fail to follow a
cognizant enumeration system. For instance, each new third-level heading begins with “2-01.2.1.1,” regardless of
the second-level heading under which it is placed. Accordingly, there are numerous subsections of Procedure 2-01L



CPF No. 4-2017-5036
Page 4
results for which a “significant risk factor” had changed. Respondent noted that a change to a
significant risk factor might result in EPO updating other risk results under subsection 2-01.2.1.3
of the procedure. Second, Respondent contended that subsection 2-01.2.1.4 required EPO to
evaluate the need to review and update risk analysis scores at least once every five years,
independent of any changes to significant risk factors. According to EPO, the two review
timelines (annual significant-change-driven and five-year change-independent) were clearly
stated and in compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e).
Having considered the record, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to assure safe
operation because they failed to state clearly that a significant risk-factor change required EPO to
update its risk analysis results; subsection 2-01.2.1.3 stated only that EPO “may” update the
analysis. To ensure pipeline safety, Procedure 2-01L must clearly outline the company’s two
risk-analysis review timelines, especially with respect to the requirement for a change-
independent review of risk results at least once every five years. This clarification will ensure
that EPO personnel are aware that a yearly review of risk analyses is required, and how the five-
year review would be performed under Procedure 2-01L.
Having considered the record, I find that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate with regard
to 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e) because they failed to clarify when EPO personnel were required to
conduct various reviews and updates of risk analyses.
AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES
Accordingly, I find that EPO’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its
pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, EPO is ordered to
make the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must:
1. Amend its Procedure 2-01L to clarify its practice of conducting annual updates of
risk analyses where a significant risk factor has changed and of conducting a review
and update of all risk-analysis scores at least once every five years, regardless of any
change to risk factors.
2. Submit the amended procedures to the Director within 30 days following receipt
of this Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each
day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
sharing the same third-level headings cited in this Order; however, all such citations refer to text under section 2-
01.2.4.



CPF No. 4-2017-5036
Page 5
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Order
to the 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, no later than 20 days after receipt of this Order Directing
Amendment by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order remain in effect
unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
March 27, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420175036M_Notice Of Amendment_11022017_text.pdf

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 2, 2017
Mr. Bacon Graham
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Products Operating
1100 Louisiana Street,
Houston Texas 77002
CPF 4-2017-5036M
Dear Mr. Graham:
On January 09, 2017 through May 24, 2017, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code
inspected Enterprise Products Operating LLC (Enterprise) procedures for Operations and
maintenance in Houston, Texas.
On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within
Enterprise’s plans or procedures, as described below:



1. 195.505– Qualification Program
(i) Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall include provisions to
After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency participating
under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if operator significantly modifies the program after the
administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with this section.
Notifications to PHMSA may be submitted by electronic mail to
informationResourcesManager@dot.gov or by mail to ATTN: Information
Resources Manager DOT/PHMSA? OPS, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Enterprise Products Operating LLC failed on separate occasions in its process for notifying
PHMSA of significant changes made to the OQ program. First instance was a failure in
communicating across changes operator considered significant in 2011(3/16/2011) as shown on
the OQ Addendum within the plan. while on the other hand operator notified PHMSA in 2012,
2013, 2014 and 2016 of changes that operator did not consider significant (referenced within
Addendum as not considered significant). Another failure of the process as seen in the Addendum
within the OQ plan are records of some changes made within the plan that were not considered
significant such as the removal of T2 training and qualification methods for various tasks (on
03/25/2010) that have been clarified in PHMSA’s ADB-09-0349 and should have been considered
significant.
These occurrences (notifications for non-significant changes and no notifications for significant
changes) can be attributed to the lack of definition and clarification within the plan for what
Enterprise considers to be significant changes. Enterprise has failed to update its OQ program to
include a definition or clarification for what constitutes a significant change and has not
incorporated into its OQ plan clarifications set forth as significant in PHMSA’s ADB 2009-0349
and required in 192.805 (i).
2. 195.452 – Pipeline Integrity management in high consequence areas
(e) (1) What are the risk factors for establishing an assessment schedule (for both the
baseline and continual integrity assessments)?
An operator must establish an integrity assessment schedule that prioritizes pipeline
segments for assessment (see paragraphs (d)(1) and (j)(3) of this section). An operator
must base the assessment schedule on all risk factors that reflect the risk conditions
on the pipeline segment. The factors the operator must consider include but are not
limited to:
2



In reviewing Enterprise’s Line Pipe Risk Analysis procedure (2-01L) in section 2-01.2.4 under the
topic of “updating risk assessment” it shows that all risk factors being considered may not reflect
the risk conditions on the pipeline segment at any given time as required under the pipeline safety
rules. Reason being that while the procedure states under 2-01.2.1.1 of the section that “The
Pipeline Integrity Engineering Manager, Pipeline Integrity Engineering Supervisor, or Pipeline
Integrity Engineer is responsible, on an annual basis, for reviewing the risk results on line pipe
segment(s) in which data for the “significant” risk factors have changed. The same section of the
procedure under 2-01.2.1.4 then states that “the need to update the risk results once every 5 years
would be evaluated by either the Pipeline Integrity Engineering Manager, Pipeline Integrity
Engineering Supervisor, or Pipeline Integrity Engineer”. This procedure needs to be updated to
reflect the need to update risk results in which data for the significant risk factors are discovered
to have changed after the risk analysis within a more reasonable time frame and that reflects the
current practice (Enterprise’s personnel stated the updates are actually carried out more frequently
than stated in the procedure).
Response to this Notice
This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. 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).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised
procedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. 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 an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or
procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans
or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this
Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the
inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement
action will be closed.
3



It is requested (not mandated) that Enterprise Products Operating LLC maintain documentation of
the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment
(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Terri Binns, Acting Director,
Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence
concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2017-5036M and, for each document you submit,
please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Frank Causey
Acting Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
4
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 23354