{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420185009","title":"ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-05-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.575(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420185009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.575(e). The case was opened on 2018-05-03 and is reported as closed as of 2019-12-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420185009_Closure Letter_12092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_Closure%20Letter_12092019.pdf\n\n420185009_Closure Letter_12092019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_Closure%20Letter_12092019_text.pdf\n\n420185009_Final Order_08082019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_Final%20Order_08082019.pdf\n\n420185009_Final Order_08082019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_Final%20Order_08082019_text.pdf\n\n420185009_NOPV PCO_05032018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_NOPV%20PCO_05032018.pdf\n\n420185009_NOPV PCO_05032018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_NOPV%20PCO_05032018_text.pdf\n\n420185009_Operator Response to Notice_06072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185009/420185009_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06072018.pdf\n\n420185009_Final Order_08082019_text.pdf\n\nAugust 8, 2019\nMr. A.J. Teague\nChief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\n1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2018-5009\nDear Mr. Teague:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, a\nwholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order\nby certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, 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 and Engineering,\nEnterprise Products Partners, LP\nMs. Brianne K. Kurdock, Babst Calland Clements and Zonmir, PC, Counsel for\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, 505 9th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC\n20004\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. 4-2018-5009\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_____________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\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 facilities and records of Enterprise\nProducts Operating, LLC (EPO or Respondent), in Houston, Texas. EPO is a wholly-owned\nsubsidiary of Enterprise Partners, LP. (Enterprise).1 Enterprise conducts substantially all of its\noperations through EPO, including approximately 50,000 miles of pipeline and 260 million\nbarrels of hazardous liquid storage capacity.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 3, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that EPO had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e) and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nEPO responded to the Notice by letter dated June 7, 2018 (Response). The company contested\nthe allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP, Form 10-Q submitted to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, available at\nhttps://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1061219/000106121919000015/form10q.htm (last accessed June 16,\n2019).\n2 Enterprise Products Partners, LP website, available at https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-\nprofile (last accessed June 16, 2019).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-5009\nPage 2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e), which states:\n§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections,\ntests, and safeguards are required?\n(e) If a pipeline is in close proximity to electrical transmission tower footings,\nground cables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is reasonable to foresee\nfault currents or an unusual risk of lightning, you must protect the pipeline against\ndamage from fault currents or lightning and take protective measures at insulating\ndevices.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e) by failing to evaluate the\npotential threat of fault currents and lightning on one of the company’s pipeline systems.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the Chaparral pipeline system was observed to be in close\nproximity to high voltage electrical transmission power lines (HVPLs) for “a considerable length\nof miles between Mont Belvieu and Bryan, Texas.” EPO failed to provide any records\ndemonstrating that the Chaparral system was protected from damage. Additionally, EPO stated\nto OPS inspectors that no fault analysis or engineering analysis had been performed on the\nChaparral line to evaluate the potential for damage from fault currents and lightning.3\nIn its Response, EPO did not contest that its actions constituted a violation of Part 195, but\nargued that PHMSA should have cited the company for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3),\nrather than § 195.575(e). Respondent raised four interrelated arguments against the proposed\nviolation: (1) OPS did not prove that the Chaparral line was in close proximity to an HVPL; (2)\nan analysis of potential fault current or lightning damage was not required by § 195.575(e); (3)\nEPO’s pre-PHMSA inspection maintenance activities and records reviews demonstrated that the\npipeline did not require protective measures against damage from fault currents or lightning; and\n(4) EPO’s post-PHMSA inspection soil-resistivity measurements further demonstrated that the\npipeline did not require protective measures against damage from fault currents or lightning.\nWith respect to EPO’s first argument, the company argues that PHMSA has never explained\nwhat constitutes “close proximity” under § 195.575(e); it also argues that PHMSA offered “no\nevidence of the distance between the Chaparral line and the HVPL.”4 Both Respondent and OPS\ncite to a 1998 PHMSA interpretation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.467(f), a substantively-identical\nregulation applicable to operators of natural gas pipelines.5 In that interpretation, PHMSA\nstated, in relevant part: “’close proximity’ means near enough to the listed structures to\nreasonably expect that a lightning strike or fault current involving the structure might harm the\npipeline's corrosion control system. Close proximity is not an absolute or minimum distance,\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, at 4 (May 3, 2018) (VR), on file with PHMSA.\n4 Response of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Response), at 4 (June 7, 2018).\n5 PHMSA Letter of Interpretation PI-98-0102 (Nov. 19, 1998).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-5009\nPage 3\nand it could vary depending on site conditions.”6 In the instant case, OPS made a factual\ndetermination that the Chaparral line was in close proximity to an HVPL “for a considerable\nlength of miles.”\nRespondent cites a PHMSA enforcement case, In the matter of Golden Pass Pipeline, LLC\n(Golden Pass),7 to suggest that factual statements made by OPS in the Notice and the VR must\nbe corroborated with additional evidence to overcome an operator’s statements to the contrary.\nIn Golden Pass, the alleged violation was withdrawn because OPS did not offer any additional\nevidence (e.g., photographs or maps) to support its interpretation of a definition in an industry\nstandard.8 Respondent recognizes that “close proximity” is not defined in terms of “an absolute\nor minimal distance,” and offers no evidence to contest OPS’ factual assertion that the pipeline\nwas in close proximity to an HVPL.9 Given the lack of evidence countering OPS’ credible\nfactual statement, and both parties’ reliance on PHMSA’s analogous interpretation of\n§ 192.467(f), Respondent’s argument that OPS was required to demonstrate some specific set of\nadditional facts in order to sustain a violation of § 195.575(e) is without merit.\nI also note that both parties cite to a 2017 PHMSA Notice of Amendment, In the Matter of\nWilliams Olefins Feedstock Pipelines, LLC (Williams), for the proposition that an operator must\nfirst evaluate “when protection against damage from fault currents or lightning is needed” in\norder to determine whether action is required to comply with § 195.575(e).10 Exhibit A to EPO’s\nResponse, Enterprise’s Procedure CPP-GEN-06, specifies that pipelines “located within or near\nHVPL corridors may be at risk” of fault current or lightning damage, and that HVPLs\n“collocated in the same [right-of-way] ROW or in close proximity to a pipeline” may cause\ndamage.11 Exhibit P contains photographs of HVPL tower footings that Respondent describes as\ncollocated with the Chaparral line.12 In the Response, EPO lists a variety of records and data that\nit reviewed to determine whether the line was subject to potential damage from fault currents and\n6 Id.\n7 In the matter of Golden Pass Pipeline, LLC, CPF 4-2008-1017 (DOT Mar. 22, 2011) (withdrawing an alleged\nviolation after finding that OPS “did not provide any evidence . . . beyond the facts and statements in the Notice and\nViolation Report” in support of its interpretation of a definition in an industry standard).\n8 Id.\n9 Response, at 3.\n10 In the Matter of Williams Olefins Feedstock Pipelines, LLC, CPF 4-2017-5002M (DOT Jan. 25, 2017).\n11 Respondent’s Exhibit A, Enterprise Procedure CPP-GEN-06, AC Fault and Lightning Evaluation for Existing\nPipelines, §§ 2.1, 3.1 (rev. Apr. 19, 2018). Respondent noted in the Response that, prior to the PHMSA inspection,\n“the Company did not have a document summarizing the actions it takes to determine if a pipeline is in close\nproximity to a HVPL and whether additional protection was necessary,” but claimed that the actions required in\nCPP-GEN-06 were “incorporated in other individual procedures.” Response at 2.\n12 See also Region Recommendation to Issue Final Order, CPF 4-2018-5009 (Nov. 13, 2018) (noting that the\nChaparral line shares a right-of-way with the HVPL).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-5009\nPage 4\nlightning.13 Given that Enterprise clearly considers collocation of its pipelines with HVPLs to be\na risk-factor for fault current or lightning damage, and the presented evidence that the Chaparral\nline is collocated with HVPLs, it is unclear why Respondent is contesting OPS’s factual\ndetermination that Chaparral line is in close proximity to HVPLs. Issues concerning the type of\nanalysis or evaluation necessary to determine whether a pipeline in close proximity to an HVPL\nor other structures listed in § 195.575(e) must have additional protection are addressed in\nresponse to Respondent’s second argument, below.\nIn Respondent’s second argument, it argues that PHMSA is attempting to require operators to\nconduct an engineering analysis not contemplated by § 195.575(e) when evaluating the threat of\nfault current and lightning damage.14 This is not the case. In the Notice and the VR, OPS\nalleged that EPO failed to evaluate the potential threat of fault current and lightning damage and,\nin the absence of evidence that a line in close proximity to an HVPL was not subject to such\ndamage, failed to demonstrate that said line was protected. OPS did not assert any requirement\nto conduct a particular engineering analysis. In light of Williams and related PHMSA guidance,\nan operator must determine whether a line in close proximity to listed structures is subject to\npotential damage from fault currents and lightning. Respondent’s assertions that its pre-\ninspection activities were sufficient to demonstrate the Chaparral line was not subject to potential\ndamage are addressed in response to its third argument, below.\nWith respect to the third argument, Respondent alleges that it took several steps to evaluate the\npotential threat of fault currents and lightning on the Chaparral line, prior to the PHMSA\ninspection. Specifically, EPO argues that it evaluated the potential threats “through evaluating\noperational data and assessment records.”15 The company alleges that this data and records\nreview “demonstrated that the Chaparral Pipeline is not in close proximity to an HVPL to trigger\nthe need for additional protective measures under § 195.575(e).”16 However, the records\nprovided as exhibits to the Response simply describe the type of coating used on the line, note\nthe results of prior cathodic-protection surveys, and observe that the line has not previously\nshown any signs of fault current or lightning-related damage. There is no evidence to\ndemonstrate that Respondent conducted an evaluation of whether the Chaparral line was at risk\nof damage from fault currents or lightning, sufficient to justify the lack of protection required by\n§ 195.575(e).\nWith respect to the final argument, EPO’s May 2017 taking of soil-resistivity measurements17\nwas an action taken during and after the PHMSA inspection to comply with the requirements of\n§ 195.575(e). The additional data and arguments in the Response constitute post hoc attempts to\n13 Response at 7 (describing, however, the review for potential fault current and lightning damage as one to\ndetermine “close proximity to an HVPL,” rather than a review of data for a line that is already determined to be in\nclose proximity).\n14 Response, at 5-6.\n15 Respondent’s Exhibit R, Affidavit of Kyle Costlow, at 2 (June 5, 2018).\n16 Response, at 7.\n17 Respondent’s Exhibit Q, Chaparral HVPL Report.\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-5009\nPage 5\njustify Respondent’s decision to not provide protection against damage from fault currents or\nlightning. After PHMSA discovers a violation of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, subsequent\noperator actions to come into compliance do not warrant the withdrawal of the proposed\nviolation. Furthermore, the soil-resistivity measurements and other data provided in the\nResponse still do not contain any computation of AC voltage and AC current densities on the\nChaparral line or any other analysis as to whether additional protection is needed.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the arguments presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e) by failing to evaluate the potential threat of fault\ncurrents and lightning on one of the company’s pipeline systems.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. §§ 195.575(e). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.575(e) (Item 1), Respondent argued the compliance terms\nshould be considered satisfied in light of its April 2018 revisions to Procedure CPP-GEN-06, AC\nFault and Lightning Evaluation for Existing Pipelines. As currently written, CPP-GEN-06 does\nnot provide sufficient detail, or reference other procedures or standards, that the operator can use\nto determine if its pipelines are in close proximity to an HVPL and whether any additional\nprotection against fault currents or lightning is required. Additionally, CPP-GEN-06 does not\nrequire Enterprise to maintain records sufficient to allow proper evaluation in § 2.0 of the\nprocedure.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn or considered satisfied.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.575(e) (Item 1), Respondent must review its\nprocedure, CPP-GEN-06, AC Fault and Lightning Evaluation for Existing Pipelines,\nto ensure that the procedure provides adequate guidance, details, and a method for\nrecording how existing pipelines are being evaluated for their protection against the\nthreat of AC fault currents and lightning. Respondent must also provide a copy of the\nmanagement-of-change (MOC) documentation that shows the procedure is effective\nand the date it became effective. Respondent shall submit the revised procedure and\nMOC documentation to PHMSA no later than 30 days from issuance of this Final\nOrder.\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-5009\nPage 6\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.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day 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 Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order 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, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nAugust 8, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420185009_Closure Letter_12092019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 9, 2019\nA.J. Teague\nDirector and Chief Executive Officer\nEnterprise Products Partners\n1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2018-5009\nDear Mr. Teague:\nOn August 8, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\na Final Order to Enterprise Products Operating LLC in the above-referenced case and included a\nCompliance Order. PHMSA has reviewed the procedure CPP – GEN – 08 titled “AC Interference\nPreliminary Assessment” submitted in response to the Order and has determined the actions to be\nacceptable.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":20471}