# ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420195001_Closure Letter_06222021_(17-156933S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Closure%20Letter_06222021_(17-156933S).pdf

420195001_Closure Letter_06222021_(17-156933S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Closure%20Letter_06222021_(17-156933S)_text.pdf

420195001_Final Order_07142020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Final%20Order_07142020.pdf

420195001_Final Order_07142020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Final%20Order_07142020_text.pdf

420195001_NOPV PCO_01222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_NOPV%20PCO_01222019.pdf

420195001_NOPV PCO_01222019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_NOPV%20PCO_01222019_text.pdf

420195001_Operator Response to Notice_02222019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195001/420195001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02222019.pdf

420195001_Final Order_07142020_text.pdf

July 14, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gbacon@eprod.com
Mr. Graham W. Bacon
Executive Vice President, Operations & Engineering
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2019-5001
Dear Mr. Bacon:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, a
subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.
When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director,
Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by
electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission 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. A. J. Teague, Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Enterprise Products Partners,
LP, ajteague@eprod.com
Mr. Jeff Morton, Senior Director – Pipeline Compliance, Enterprise Products Partners,
LP, jcmorton@eprod.com
CONFIRMATION OF 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. 4-2019-5001
a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From November 27, 2017 through June 28, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives
of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline
Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC’s (Enterprise or Respondent) Texas Express System. The
Texas Express System transports mixed natural gas liquids from natural gas processing facilities
in Northern Texas and Front Range Pipeline in Skellytown, Texas to Enterprise’s fractionation
and storage complex in and around Mont Belvieu, Texas.1 Respondent is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, LP, which operates approximately 49,200 miles of
natural gas, natural gas liquid, crude oil, refined products, and petrochemical transmission and
gathering pipelines throughout the United States.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated January 22, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enterprise had violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.402 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the
alleged violations. The warning item required no further action, but warned the operator to
correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.
Enterprise responded to the Notice by letter dated February 22, 2019 (Response). The company
responded to the allegation and offered additional information regarding the actions it planned to
take in response to the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its
right to one.
1 Enterprise Products Partners, LP – NGL Pipelines website, available at
https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/ngl-pipelines-services/ngl-pipelines (last accessed June 30, 2020).
2 Enterprise Products Partners, LP – Business Operations website, available at
https://www.enterpriseproducts.com/about-us/business-profile (last accessed June 30, 2020).



CPF No. 4-2019-5001
Page 2
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c)(3), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to
provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:
(1) . . .
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in
accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of
this part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to follow its
written procedure for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance
with each of the requirements of subparts F and H of part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Respondent failed to follow its procedure STD.2600 Fencing, Section 3.8(2)(a) Gate
Locations, which states, “Emergency exit gates shall be provided with panic hardware that
allows the worker to exit without a key, but provides facility security from the exterior.” The
Notice alleged that during the inspection, PHMSA identified four mainline valve locations where
locks were in place to prevent unauthorized entry by people or cows. At mainline valves 44, 49,
51, and 53, Enterprise locked each emergency gate preventing them from providing a keyless
exit as required by its written procedure.
In its Response, Enterprise did not explicitly state that it contested the alleged violation, but
referenced another subsection of its Section 3.8 procedures and provided information concerning
actions it planned to take to remediate the alleged violation. Enterprise specifically referred to
Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) Gate Locations, which states, “For small, normally unstaffed locations, such
as valve sites, the access gate can be left open while work is being performed. This will provide
for the emergency exit.” Enterprise indicated that given Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii), it would be
converting the gates at issue in this matter, including mainline valves 44 through 54, to non-
emergency exit gates. Enterprise further indicated that it would remove the “Emergency Exit”
signs and that company personnel would follow STD.2600 Fencing Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) by
leaving the access gate open while work is being performed at the valve locations.
Although Respondent has provided information concerning actions it planned to take in the
future, I find that Enterprise has presented no evidence demonstrating that it was compliant with
procedure STD.2600 Fencing, Section 3.8(2)(a) Gate Locations at the four main valve locations
listed above at the time of the inspection. In fact, photographic evidence in the record shows the



CPF No. 4-2019-5001
Page 3
gate at the mainline valve 49 location was locked with a chain and lock, including from inside
the site, thus preventing a keyless exit as required by Section 3.8(2)(a) of its procedure.3
Furthermore, Enterprise’s Response is limited to outlining the steps it intends to take to correct
the alleged violations; these proposed actions do not negate the alleged violation which PHMSA
discovered during the inspection.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(c)(3) by failing to follow its written procedure STD.2600 Fencing Section 3.8(2)(a)
Gate Locations.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for the violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
Specifically, the Notice proposed that Enterprise ensure all emergency gates are secured against
outside entry with panic hardware capable of functioning as prescribed in its procedure
STD.2600 Fencing. As discussed above, Respondent outlined in its Response the steps it intends
to take to correct the alleged violation. Specifically, Enterprise stated that it “is converting the
gates at Texas Express mainline valve locations where unauthorized entry concerns exist (i.e.
mainline valve 44 through 54) to non-emergency exit gates and removing the ‘Emergency Exit’
signs; and, Company personnel will follow STD.2600 section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) by leaving the access
gate open while work is being performed in these valve sites.”
In reviewing Enterprise’s proposed alternative action, I find it does not appear to be consistent
with its own procedures. First, Section 3.8(1) requires Respondent to perform an assessment to
determine if emergency gates are needed, and if so, to identify the location(s). Section 3.8(1)(a)
states that when perimeter fencing prevents workers from reaching a safe place, then an
emergency gate should be provided. Section 3.8(1)(a)(ii) then indicates that for sites, such as
mainline valve sites, which only have one access gate, that the access gate will serve as the
emergency exit and can remain open while work is being performed. Enterprise’s proposed
action to re-designate the gates as non-emergency exits does not appear to be consistent with
Section 3.8(1), pursuant to which Respondent has already determined that emergency exits at
those locations were needed. It also appears inconsistent with Section 3.8(2), which states that if
an emergency exit is required from the assessment, it must have panic hardware that allows the
worker to exit without a key, but provides facility security from the exterior. Enterprise has not
provided any documentation of its determination for the re-designation of the gates at issue to
non-emergency gates and how such re-designation is consistent with procedure STD.2600. For
3 Exhibit A to the Pipeline Safety Violation Report at 26 and 27 (on file with PHMSA).



CPF No. 4-2019-5001
Page 4
the foregoing reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.
Accordingly, Respondent is ordered, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and
49 C.F.R. § 190.217, to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety
regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(3) (Item 1), Respondent must ensure
all Emergency Gates are secured against outside entry and panic hardware capable of
functioning as prescribed in STD.2600 Fencing. If, however, Respondent determines
that a gate previously identified as an emergency exit (i.e., a gate at mainline valves
44 through 54) is no longer needed to serve as an emergency exit, Respondent must
provide documentation and justification of its determination for designating that gate
as a non-emergency gate. Such determination must be consistent with Section 3.8,
Gate Locations, of Enterprise’s procedure STD.2600 Fencing. In the event that the
gates remain designated as emergency exits, then Enterprise must provide each
emergency gate with panic hardware that allows the worker to exit without a key, but
provides facility security from the exterior as prescribed in procedure STD.2600
Fencing.
2. Within 60 days following receipt of this Final Order, Enterprise must provide the
Director, Southwest Region, with documentation showing satisfactory completion of
Item 1 of this Compliance 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.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the 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
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a
warning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b)(1) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to complete a
review of a supervisor’s performance in meeting the requirements of its



CPF No. 4-2019-5001
Page 5
Emergency Response Training program at an interval not exceeding 15 months,
but at least once each calendar year.
Under § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable
violation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
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 service of this
Final Order 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, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
July 14, 2020
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420195001_Closure Letter_06222021_(17-156933S)_text.pdf

ELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 22, 2021
Graham W. Bacon
Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2019-5001
Dear Mr. Bacon:
On July 14, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise), a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This
Order included a Compliance Order and a Warning Item. Based on PHMSA’s review of the
documentation provided by Enterprise, it has been determined that Enterprise has complied with the
terms of the Final Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters
involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: A. J. Teague, Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Enterprise Products Partners, LP,
ajteage@eprod.com
Jeff Morton, Senior Director-Pipeline Compliance, Enterprise Products Partners, LP,
jcmorton@eprod.com
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 16905