{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42022062NOPV","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":"2022-12-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.262(d), 195.402(a), 195.412(a), 195.420(a), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(i)(4).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022062nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022062nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022062nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42022062NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.262(d),  195.402(a),  195.412(a),  195.420(a),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(i)(4). The case was opened on 2022-12-14 and is reported as closed as of 2023-11-28. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42022062NOPV_Closure Letter_11282023_(22-234365).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11282023_(22-234365).pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_Closure Letter_11282023_(22-234365)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11282023_(22-234365)_text.pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_Final Order_07142023_(22-234365).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_Final%20Order_07142023_(22-234365).pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_Final Order_07142023_(22-234365)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_Final%20Order_07142023_(22-234365)_text.pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_03142023_(22-234365).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03142023_(22-234365).pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_PCO_12142022_(22-234365).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_PCO_12142022_(22-234365).pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_PCO_12142022_(22-234365)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022062NOPV/42022062NOPV_PCO_12142022_(22-234365)_text.pdf\n\n42022062NOPV_Final Order_07142023_(22-234365)_text.pdf\n\nJuly 14, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gbacon@eprod.com\nMr. Graham Bacon\nExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2022-062-NOPV\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of\nthe allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation and specifies actions that need to\nbe taken by Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, 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 e-mail\nis effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Suzie Davis, Senior Manager, Transportation Compliance, Enterprise Products\nOperating, LLC, smdavis@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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2022-062-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February 7 through May 13, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), inspected Enterprise Products Operating, LLC’s (Enterprise or Respondent) MAPCO SW\nPipeline System in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The MAPCO SW system\nconsists of 2,421 pipeline miles and operates in the following states: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas,\nand New Mexico. The products transported include liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas liquid,\nand refined and/or petroleum products. This system includes 1,320 right-of-way miles, 9\nbreakout tanks, and 19 pump stations.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 14, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Enterprise committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering\nRespondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included an\nadditional two warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enterprise responded to the\nNotice by letter dated March 14, 2023 (Response). Respondent contested several of the\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that certain\nproposed compliance orders be withdrawn. Enterprise did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n\n\n\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202, which states:\n§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthe requirements of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.202 by failing to construct each\npipeline system in accordance with written specifications or standards that are consistent with the\nrequirements of Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to follow its\nwritten procedure, Engineering Standard 8501 (STD.8501), Bolt Torquing and Flange Assembly\n(May 2021), Section 7.0 Material, which states that “the minimum acceptable length of bolt shall\nbe full nut engagement after initial tightening.”1 The Notice stated that bolts on flanges at eight\nlocations (Ponderosa Junction, MP 8 Valve Site, Hobbs Pump Station, Conway Pump Station,\nWillowbrook Pump Station, Langdon Pump Station, Hutchinson Pump Station, and Coffeyville\nPump Station) were observed to be either flush or recessed. At these locations, PHMSA\nobserved bolts that failed to have the minimum acceptable length such that full nut engagement\nwas not achieved in the nut on both ends, contrary to the operator’s procedures. After the\nconclusion of the PHMSA inspection, Enterprise provided bolt-flange assembly records to\nindicate it fixed the improperly installed bolts at four of the eight locations: Ponderosa Junction,\nConway Pump Station, Langdon Pump Station, and Hutchinson Pump Station.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation of violation. It provided new bolt\nflange assembly records showing that it fixed the improperly installed bolts at the other four\nlocations identified in the Notice: MP Valve 8 Site, Hobbs Pump Station, Willowbrook Pump\nStation, and Coffeyville Pump Station.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.202 by failing to construct each pipeline system in accordance with written specifications\nor standards that are consistent with the requirements of Part 195.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.262(d), which states:\n§ 195.262 Pumping equipment.\n(a)….\n(d) Except for offshore pipelines, pumping equipment must be installed\non property that is under the control of the operator and at least 15.2 m (50ft)\nfrom the boundary of the pump station.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.262(d) by failing to install pumping\nequipment at least 15.2 meters (50 feet) from the boundary of the pump station. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Enterprise failed to install pumping equipment at least 50 feet from the\nboundary of the pump station at the Coffeyville Pump Station (37 feet from the boundary on\nnorth side; 48 feet from the boundary on the south side), Bushton Pump Station (17 feet, 2 inches\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, December 14, 2022, (hereinafter “Violation Report”), at Exh. 1-1 (on file with\nPHMSA).\n\n\n\nfrom the boundary on the south side; 34 feet from the boundary on the east side), and Newton\nPump Station (23 feet from the boundary on the east side).2\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation of violation. It stated that it has or is in\nthe process of addressing each of the pump installation concerns listed in the Notice.\nRespondent stated the pump at Coffeyville Pump Station was removed in March 2023. Land\nsurveys have been completed at Newton and Bushton Pump Stations and plans are in place to\nrelocate the fence at both locations to meet the 50 feet requirement. Once additional property is\nacquired at the Bushton Pump Station, Enterprise will relocate the fence to the appropriate 50\nfeet or more boundary.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.262(d) by failing to install pumping equipment at least 15.2 meters (50 feet) from the\nboundary of the pump station\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe\noperation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each\nvalve that is necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all\ntimes. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the field inspection PHMSA observed leaking\nvalve plugs and valve stems at the following locations: Mocane Station on the 6-inch SN\n106717-4 and 10-inch SN BM200041 pipelines, milepost 5 on the 10-inch pipeline, Skellytown\nStation on the 8-inch pipeline, at milepost 196 on the 10-inch pipeline, Valve SN 5797 at Tulia\nStation, at milepost 134 on the 10-inch pipeline, and at milepost 43 on the 10-inch pipeline.\nEnterprise’s procedures state that “when operating the valve, look for signs of leakage, stability,\nand valve support, tightness of bolts or connections, and return any valve to its proper position\nfor normal operation.”3\nAfter the inspection, Respondent performed maintenance work and provided the records for the\nfollowing valves in June 2022: milepost 134 on the 10-inch pipeline, milepost 5 on the 10-inch\npipeline, Mocane Station on the 6-inch SN 106717-4 and 10-inch SN BM200041 pipelines,\nmilepost 196 on the 10-inch pipeline, milepost 43 on the 10-inch pipeline, Skellytown Station on\nthe 8-inch pipeline, and on Valve SN 5797 at Tulia Station.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation of violation. It provided maintenance\nrecords for the leaking valves identified during the inspection.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n2 Enterprise’s procedures define the boundary as the area inside the fence. See Violation Report, at Exh. 2-1,\nMainline Pump Station Standardization Guideline, at Section 1.2.2.\n3 Violation Report. at Exh. 4-10, at Section 5.6.3.2.\n\n\n\n§ 195.420(a) by failing to maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of its\npipeline systems in good working order at all times.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with initial framework. An operator\nmust continually change the program to reflect operating experience,\nconclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments, and other\nmaintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a\nfailure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at\nminimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) ….\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3) by failing to integrate all\navailable information about the integrity of the entire pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Enterprise’s risk report contained inaccurate information about the Coffeyville facility. The\nNotice stated PHMSA reviewed the Facility Integrity Management Program Current Risk Report\n(Risk Report) for the Coffeyville Facility and found numerous instances of the report containing\ninaccurate information, such as equipment quantity, atmospheric coating conditions, security,\nstaffing, and complexity factor. Each of these are data integration factors used in the determination\nof the facility risk score. The data from the Risk Report did not match the data from the Facility\nEvaluation Questionnaires provided by Enterprise’s Corrosion Prevention, Operations, and\nPipeline Control office. PHMSA reviewed the Facility Risk Analysis Procedure and also found\nthat the determination of the complexity factor for the Coffeyville and El Dorado facilities did not\nmatch the table in the 2014 procedure. Specifically, both facilities had a complexity factor below\n2.0, but the 2014 procedure requires a complexity factor of 2.0 or greater if the facility has a pump\nor launcher. Coffeyville and El Dorado both have at least one launcher.\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested the allegation of violation and requested that it be\nwithdrawn. Regarding PHMSA’s allegation that the equipment quantity in the Risk Report did\nnot match the data from the information analysis Facility Evaluation Questionnaires, Enterprise\nstated that the data used in the Risk Report was accurate. Respondent asserted that the Risk\nReport data for equipment quantity came from the approved Facility Evaluation Information\nAnalysis Report, which had been determined to be accurate through conversations with\noperations personnel.\nRegarding PHMSA’s allegation that the atmospheric coating conditions in the Risk Report did\nnot match the data from the information analysis Corrosion Prevention Questionnaire (CPQ),\nEnterprise stated that the CPQ collects significantly different atmospheric corrosion data than the\natmospheric inspection data collected for the Risk Report. The CPQ collects counts of all the\n\n\n\nfindings from the most recent atmospheric inspection whereas the risk analysis collects data\nregarding the most severe indication. Respondent asserted that the Risk Report data for\natmospheric coating conditions came from the approved Facility Evaluation Information\nAnalysis Report, which had been determined to be accurate through conversations with\noperations personnel.\nRegarding PHMSA’s allegation that data concerning facility security was inaccurate, Enterprise\nacknowledged that its operations questionnaire stated motorized valves were not secured.\nEnterprise asserted, “there is no note indicating that the motor operated valves at Coffeyville are\nunsecured in the Information Analysis section summarizing the Mechanical Damage threat,”\nwhich would be expected based on the instructions Enterprise gave to its Facility Integrity\nEngineers. Enterprise further stated that it confirmed with Operations that motor operated valves\nat Coffeyville have been historically secured. Therefore, Respondent asserted, the security status\nof motor operated valves in the approved information analysis accurately represented the actual\nsecurity status of the motor operated valves. Enterprise consequently argued that the Risk\nReport accurately represented the security status of the motor operated valves at Coffeyville.\nRegarding PHMSA’s allegation that data concerning facility staffing was inaccurate, Enterprise\nacknowledged that it made an update to its operations questionnaire concerning staffing levels\nand that this update had not been included in the 2021 Risk Report. Respondent asserted that\nhad this update been included in the Risk Report, the overall risk score for Coffeyville would\nhave been increased by 0.005 points from an overall score of 11.434 to 11.439 (out of 100), and\nthat this increase would not have changed the overall relative risk ranking of Coffeyville.\nRegarding PHMSA’s allegation that the complexity factor for Coffeyville and El Dorado did not\nmatch allowed values in its 2014 procedure, Respondent acknowledged that it changed its\nFacility Risk Model in 2019, but failed to finalize updates to IM Procedure 2-01F before\nbeginning the inspection.\nWhile Enterprise explained that discrepancies between the questionnaires and risk reports were a\nproduct of its data verification, the staffing levels and complexity factors were nonetheless\ninaccurate in the Risk Report. Respondent acknowledged that had the correct facility staffing\ncriteria been used, it would have resulted in a slightly higher overall risk score for the facility. In\naddition, Enterprise admitted that the incorrect complexity factor was used because it had failed to\nupdate its procedure.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(f)(3) by failing to integrate all available information about the integrity of the entire\npipeline with respect to staffing and the complexity factor.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(i) What preventative and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area?\n(1) ….\n(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator\ndetermines that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high\nconsequence area in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an\noperator must install the EFRD. In making this determination, an operator\nmust, at least, consider the following factors - the swiftness of leak detection\nand pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate\nof potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or pipeline\nprofile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power sources, location of\nnearest response personnel, specific terrain between the pipeline segment\nand the high consequence area, and benefits expected by reducing the spill\nsize.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) by failing to conduct an\nemergency flow restricting device (EFRD) analysis on segments of the MAPCO SW Pipeline\nSystem that transport non-highly volatile liquid products that pool when released. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to conduct an EFRD analysis on its Getty ‐ El Dorado\nMetering to Kaneb pipeline segment, which transports pooling products. Section 2.2 of\nRespondent’s integrity management program states that “[a] pipeline segment that transports\npooling products will be considered for an EFRD analysis.”4\nIn its Response, Enterprise stated that it conducts EFRD analyses for segments that transport\nnon-highly volatile liquid products that pool when released through execution of the company’s\ninformation analysis process in accordance with IM Procedure 6-01 Information Analysis – Line\nPipe, Rev 10 dated 1/25/2010, Rev 15 dated 5/28/2012, Rev 17 dated 5/14/2014. If it is\ndetermined through this information analysis that the installation of an EFRD has the potential to\nsignificantly reduce the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence area (HCA), a\nrecommendation is made to conduct an EFRD study in accordance with IM Procedure 1-02,\nEmergency Flow Restriction Devices Study, Rev B dated 6/24/2022.\nEnterprise provided with its Response information analyses from 2011, 2012, and 2016 that\nincluded the determination to install an EFRD for the pipeline segment LID 820 – Getty – El\nDorado Metering to Kaneb. No additional EFRD installations were recommended as a result of\neach of the information analyses. These documents were not provided during the inspection.\nThe information analyses show that Respondent evaluated the required factors that must be\n4 Violation Report. at Exh. 7.2, at Section 2.2.\n\n\n\nevaluated when making the determination to install EFRDs. In a recommendation for final\naction submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the OPS Southwest Region Director recommended\nwithdrawing the alleged violation of § 195.452(i)(4). Based on Enterprise’s Response and the\nprovided information analyses, I find Respondent is not in violation of § 195.452(i)(4).\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that Item 7 be withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 for violations of\n49 C.F.R. §§ 195.202, 195.262(d), 195.420(a), 195.452(f)(3), and 195.452(i)(4), respectively.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601.\nAs discussed above, Item 7 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in\nthe Notice for that Item are not included in this Order.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.202 (Item 1), Respondent did not contest the proposed\ncompliance order. In its Response, Enterprise provided new bolt flange assembly records\nshowing that it fixed the improperly installed bolts at the other four locations identified in the\nNotice.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.262(d) (Item 2), Enterprise did not contest the proposed\ncompliance order. In its Response, Enterprise stated that it has or is in the process of addressing\neach of the pump installation concerns listed in the Notice.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.420(a) (Item 4), Respondent did not contest the proposed\ncompliance order. In its Response, Enterprise provided maintenance records for the leaking valves\nidentified during the PHMSA inspection.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.452(f)(3) (Item 6), Enterprise did not contest the proposed\ncompliance order. In its Response, Respondent agreed to take the corrective actions detailed in\nthe Proposed Compliance Order.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\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 § 195.202 (Item 1), Respondent must ensure bolts\non flanges at all locations on the MAPCO SW Pipeline System are installed\naccording to its procedure, Engineering Standard 8501 (STD.8501), Bolt Torquing\nand Flange, and provide inspection and repair documentation to the Director,\nSouthwest Region, PHMSA within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order.\n\n\n\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.262(d) (Item 2), Respondent must ensure\nthat its pumping equipment is at least 50 feet from the boundary of the property for\nthe Coffeyville, Bushton, and Newton pump stations. Enterprise must provide\nupdated drawings, pictures of the measurements, and any modification documentation\nto the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA within 180 days of issuance of the Final\nOrder.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.420(a) (Item 4), Respondent must ensure all\npersonnel are trained to perform valve inspections and maintenance in accordance\nwith its evaluation checklist and the operator qualification compliance requirements\nand provide these training records to the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA within\n90 days of issuance of the Final Order.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(3) (Item 6), Respondent must\nconduct a risk analysis that integrates all available information about the integrity of\nthe entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure for each facility located within an\nHCA using its updated facility risk analysis procedure and provide the risk analysis\nfor each facility to the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA within 90 days of\nissuance of the Final 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.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, 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 (see 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 ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3 and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but identified\nthem as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way using an\nappropriate method of inspection; and\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting valve inspections and maintenance.\nWith respect to Items 3 and 5, Enterprise presented information in its Response showing that it\nhad taken certain actions to address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in\na subsequent inspection, Respondent 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. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of\nthe order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, 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, 2023\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n42022062NOPV_Closure Letter_11282023_(22-234365)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gbacon@eprod.com\nNovember 28, 2023\nGraham Bacon\nExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2022-062-NOPV\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nFrom February 7 through May 13, 2022, a representative of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted a pipeline safety inspection of\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC’s (Enterprise) MAPCO SW pipeline system in New Mexico,\nTexas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. As a result of the inspection, Enterprise was issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation (NOPV) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal\nRegulations in the above-referenced case.\nOn July 14, 2023, PHMSA issued a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order. Based on PHMSA’s review of the documentation you provided, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\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,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Jeff Morton, Senior Director, Transportation Compliance, jmorton@eprod.com\nSuzie Davis, Pipeline Compliance Manger, smdavis@eprod.com\nRyan Tschannen, Pipeline Compliance Engineer, rtschannen@eprod.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":28630}