{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420195001","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":"2019-01-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(3), 195.403(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420195001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(3),  195.403(b)(1). The case was opened on 2019-01-22 and is reported as closed as of 2021-06-22. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420195001_Closure Letter_06222021_(17-156933S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Closure%20Letter_06222021_(17-156933S).pdf\n\n420195001_Closure Letter_06222021_(17-156933S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Closure%20Letter_06222021_(17-156933S)_text.pdf\n\n420195001_Final Order_07142020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Final%20Order_07142020.pdf\n\n420195001_Final Order_07142020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Final%20Order_07142020_text.pdf\n\n420195001_NOPV PCO_01222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_NOPV%20PCO_01222019.pdf\n\n420195001_NOPV PCO_01222019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_NOPV%20PCO_01222019_text.pdf\n\n420195001_Operator Response to Notice_02222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02222019.pdf\n\n420195001_Final Order_07142020_text.pdf\n\nJuly 14, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gbacon@eprod.com\nMr. Graham W. Bacon\nExecutive Vice President, Operations & Engineering\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-5001\nDear Mr. Bacon:\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\nsubsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nWhen the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director,\nSouthwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by\nelectronic mail 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. A. J. Teague, Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Enterprise Products Partners,\nLP, ajteague@eprod.com\nMr. Jeff Morton, Senior Director – Pipeline Compliance, Enterprise Products Partners,\nLP, jcmorton@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 Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2019-5001\na subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 27, 2017 through June 28, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC’s (Enterprise or Respondent) Texas Express System. The\nTexas Express System transports mixed natural gas liquids from natural gas processing facilities\nin Northern Texas and Front Range Pipeline in Skellytown, Texas to Enterprise’s fractionation\nand storage complex in and around Mont Belvieu, Texas.1 Respondent is a wholly-owned\nsubsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, which operates approximately 49,200 miles of\nnatural gas, natural gas liquid, crude oil, refined products, and petrochemical transmission and\ngathering pipelines throughout the United States.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 22, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enterprise had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations. The warning item required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nEnterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated February 22, 2019 (Response). The company\nresponded to the allegation and offered additional information regarding the actions it planned to\ntake in response to the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\n1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP – NGL Pipelines website, available at\nhttps://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/ngl-pipelines-services/ngl-pipelines (last accessed June 30, 2020).\n2 Enterprise Products Partners, LP – Business Operations website, available at\nhttps://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-profile (last accessed June 30, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5001\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. § 195.403(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) . . .\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to follow its\nwritten procedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of subparts F and H of part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Respondent failed to follow its procedure STD.2600 Fencing, Section 3.8(2)(a) Gate\nLocations, which states, “Emergency exit gates shall be provided with panic hardware that\nallows the worker to exit without a key, but provides facility security from the exterior.” The\nNotice alleged that during the inspection, PHMSA identified four mainline valve locations where\nlocks were in place to prevent unauthorized entry by people or cows. At mainline valves 44, 49,\n51, and 53, Enterprise locked each emergency gate preventing them from providing a keyless\nexit as required by its written procedure.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not explicitly state that it contested the alleged violation, but\nreferenced another subsection of its Section 3.8 procedures and provided information concerning\nactions it planned to take to remediate the alleged violation. Enterprise specifically referred to\nSection 3.8(1)(a)(ii) Gate Locations, which states, “For small, normally unstaffed locations, such\nas valve sites, the access gate can be left open while work is being performed. This will provide\nfor the emergency exit.” Enterprise indicated that given Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii), it would be\nconverting the gates at issue in this matter, including mainline valves 44 through 54, to non-\nemergency exit gates. Enterprise further indicated that it would remove the “Emergency Exit”\nsigns and that company personnel would follow STD.2600 Fencing Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) by\nleaving the access gate open while work is being performed at the valve locations.\nAlthough Respondent has provided information concerning actions it planned to take in the\nfuture, I find that Enterprise has presented no evidence demonstrating that it was compliant with\nprocedure STD.2600 Fencing, Section 3.8(2)(a) Gate Locations at the four main valve locations\nlisted above at the time of the inspection. In fact, photographic evidence in the record shows the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5001\nPage 3\ngate at the mainline valve 49 location was locked with a chain and lock, including from inside\nthe site, thus preventing a keyless exit as required by Section 3.8(2)(a) of its procedure.3\nFurthermore, Enterprise’s Response is limited to outlining the steps it intends to take to correct\nthe alleged violations; these proposed actions do not negate the alleged violation which PHMSA\ndiscovered during the inspection.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(3) by failing to follow its written procedure STD.2600 Fencing Section 3.8(2)(a)\nGate Locations.\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 the violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3). 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.\nSpecifically, the Notice proposed that Enterprise ensure all emergency gates are secured against\noutside entry with panic hardware capable of functioning as prescribed in its procedure\nSTD.2600 Fencing. As discussed above, Respondent outlined in its Response the steps it intends\nto take to correct the alleged violation. Specifically, Enterprise stated that it “is converting the\ngates at Texas Express mainline valve locations where unauthorized entry concerns exist (i.e.\nmainline valve 44 through 54) to non-emergency exit gates and removing the ‘Emergency Exit’\nsigns; and, Company personnel will follow STD.2600 section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) by leaving the access\ngate open while work is being performed in these valve sites.”\nIn reviewing Enterprise’s proposed alternative action, I find it does not appear to be consistent\nwith its own procedures. First, Section 3.8(1) requires Respondent to perform an assessment to\ndetermine if emergency gates are needed, and if so, to identify the location(s). Section 3.8(1)(a)\nstates that when perimeter fencing prevents workers from reaching a safe place, then an\nemergency gate should be provided. Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) then indicates that for sites, such as\nmainline valve sites, which only have one access gate, that the access gate will serve as the\nemergency exit and can remain open while work is being performed. Enterprise’s proposed\naction to re-designate the gates as non-emergency exits does not appear to be consistent with\nSection 3.8(1), pursuant to which Respondent has already determined that emergency exits at\nthose locations were needed. It also appears inconsistent with Section 3.8(2), which states that if\nan emergency exit is required from the assessment, it must have panic hardware that allows the\nworker to exit without a key, but provides facility security from the exterior. Enterprise has not\nprovided any documentation of its determination for the re-designation of the gates at issue to\nnon-emergency gates and how such re-designation is consistent with procedure STD.2600. For\n3 Exhibit A to the Pipeline Safety Violation Report at 26 and 27 (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5001\nPage 4\nthe foregoing reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\nAccordingly, Respondent is ordered, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(3) (Item 1), Respondent must ensure\nall Emergency Gates are secured against outside entry and panic hardware capable of\nfunctioning as prescribed in STD.2600 Fencing. If, however, Respondent determines\nthat a gate previously identified as an emergency exit (i.e., a gate at mainline valves\n44 through 54) is no longer needed to serve as an emergency exit, Respondent must\nprovide documentation and justification of its determination for designating that gate\nas a non-emergency gate. Such determination must be consistent with Section 3.8,\nGate Locations, of Enterprise’s procedure STD.2600 Fencing. In the event that the\ngates remain designated as emergency exits, then Enterprise must provide each\nemergency gate with panic hardware that allows the worker to exit without a key, but\nprovides facility security from the exterior as prescribed in procedure STD.2600\nFencing.\n2. Within 60 days following receipt of this Final Order, Enterprise must provide the\nDirector, Southwest Region, with documentation showing satisfactory completion of\nItem 1 of this Compliance 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.\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.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b)(1) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to complete a\nreview of a supervisor’s performance in meeting the requirements of its\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5001\nPage 5\nEmergency Response Training program at an interval not exceeding 15 months,\nbut at least once each calendar year.\nUnder § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable\nviolation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\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.\nJuly 14, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420195001_Closure Letter_06222021_(17-156933S)_text.pdf\n\nELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 22, 2021\nGraham W. Bacon\nExecutive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2019-5001\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nOn July 14, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise), a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and a Warning Item. Based on PHMSA’s review of the\ndocumentation provided by Enterprise, it has been determined that Enterprise has complied with the\nterms of the Final Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: A. J. Teague, Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Enterprise Products Partners, LP,\najteage@eprod.com\nJeff Morton, Senior Director-Pipeline Compliance, Enterprise Products Partners, LP,\njcmorton@eprod.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":16905}