ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDFCPF NO 3-2004-1007 ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.pdf#

320041007_final order_02162006_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFLt 5 Department of Transportation tsttsetine ond Hozordous Motertots Sofety Administrot ton 400 Seventh Street, S W Washington, 0 C 20590 lll' th Mr Dan Tutcher President Enbrtdge Energy, Limited Partnership 1100 Louisiana, Suite 2950 Houston, TX 77002 Re CPF No 3-2004-1007 Dear Mr Tutcher Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Admmistrator for Pipehne Safety in the above-referenced case It withdraws one of the alleganons of violation, makes findmgs of violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000 The penalty payment terms are set forth m the Final Order This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment Your receipt of the Fmal Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C F R t3 190 5 Sincerely James Reynolds Pipelme Comphance Registry Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc Mr Ivan Huntoon Director, Central Region, OPS CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE VESTED#

320041007_final order_02162006_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20590 In the Matter of Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, Respondent. CPF No. 3-2004-1007 FINAL ORDER On September 3-6, 2002, October 15-16, 2002, and March 10-11, 2003, pursuant to 49 U S C t't 60117, representatives of the Pipehne and Hazardous Matenals Safety Adnumstration (PHMSA) and the Michigan Public Service Commission conducted an on-site pipehne safety inspection of Respondent's Vector pipelme facilities and records in lllmois, Indiana, and Michigan As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by letter dated Apnl 5, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civd Penalty (Nonce) In accordance with 49 C F R 5 190 207, the Notice proposed findin that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C F R Part 192 and proposed assessing a mvil penalty of $11, 500 for the alleged violations Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 5, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated February 11, 2005 (Response) Respondent contested the allegations m part, offered information to explain the alleganons, descnbed the corrective measures it has taken, and requested that the proposed mvil penalty be reduced or ehmmated Respondent did not request a heanng, and therefore has wiuved its nght to one FINDINGS OF VIOLATION Item 4 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R 5 192 731(a) by fiuling to demonstrate that relief valves PSV-108 and PSV-208 were inspected in 2001 or 2002 In its response, Respondent provided documentation demonstrating that the specified valves were mspected in 2002, but acknowledged that the valves were not inspected in 2001 Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated tl 192 731(a) by failing to inspect the specified relief valves in 2001#

320041007_final order_02162006_text.pdf, page 3Item 5 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R g 192 743 by fatling to demonstrate that yearly review and calculations of rehef capacities were conducted for relief valves PSV-003, PSV-108, and PSV-208 in 2001 or 2002 In its response, Respondent provided documentation demonstrating that PSV-003 had been checked for set point in 2001, but acknowledged that yearly calculations of relief capacities for the specified valves were not documented m 2001 and 2002 Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated ll 192 743 by fiuhng to demonstrate that yearly review and calculations of relief capacities were conducted for the specified rehef valves in 2001 or 2002 These findings of violation will be considered pnor offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken agamst Respondent WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION Item 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R 5 192 225(b) by failing to demonstrate that a welding procedure used for the Crete Lateral construction proJect had been quahfied by appropnate tests In its response, Respondent submitted information demonstrating that it did have a quahfied welding procedure m place at the time of the construction Based on this information demonstrating comphance with the regulation, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U S C 5 60122, Respondent is sub)ect to a civil penalty not to exceed $25, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $500, 000 for any related senes of violations 49 U S C l'r 60122 and 49 C F R 5 190 225 require that, in determinmg the amount of the civil penalty, I consider the followmg cntena nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's pnor offenses, Respondent's abihty to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as &ustice may require With respect to Item 4, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $3, 000 for Respondent's failure to demonstrate that pressure relief valves PSV-108 and PSV-208 were timely inspected Annual inspection and testing of reltef devices is an important part of pipehne safety because their operability must be periodically venfied in order to ensure protection against potential overpressure events In its response, Respondent explained that its failure to inspect the specified valves in 2001 was an oversight, and demonstrated that it did m fact mspect the specified valves in 2002 Based on this information demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulation in one of the two years cited, a reduction of 50 percent in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this item is warranted Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $1, 500 for violating 49 C F R tt 192 731(a)#

320041007_final order_02162006_text.pdf, page 4With respect to Item 5, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $3, 500 for Respondent's failure to demonstrate that yearly review and calculations of relief capacities were conducted for the specified relief valves m 2001 or 2002 Annual review and calculations of relief valve capacities is an important part of pipehne safety because the sufficiency of their capacity to hmit the operating pressure to the desired maximum must be penodically venfied in order to prevent potential overpressure events from causing damage In its response, Respondent explamed that it had reason to believe that the relief capacities of the specified valves were sufficient dunng the relevant penod Respondent, however, has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $3, 500 for violating 49 C F R I't 192 743 Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment cntena, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $5, 000 Payment of the civil penalty must be made wtthm 20 days of service Payment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (contaming the CPF Number for this case) payable to "U S Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), P 0 Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 Federal regulations (49 C F R II 89 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwtre), to the account of the U S Treasury Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviauon Admtntsnatton, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P 0 Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 954-4719 Fadure to pay the $5, 000 civi! penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U S C tl3717, 31 C F R t'1 901 9 and 49 C F R II 8923 Pursuant to those same authonties, a late penalty charge of six percent (6') per annum will be charged if payment is not made withm 110 days of service Furthermore, failure to pay the civd penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropnate action in a United States Distnct Court WARNING ITEMS The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or comphance order for Items 2 and 3 in the Notice Therefore, these are considered to be warning items The warnings were for Respondent's failure to timely mspect three rectifiers m accordance with 11 192 465(b), and fadure to timely conduct leak surveys at three locations m accordance with I'I 192 706(a) Respondent is warned that if these items are not addressed, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent mspection reveals a violation#

320041007_final order_02162006_text.pdf, page 5Under 49 C F R 5 190 215, Respondent has a nght to submit a petiuon for reconsideration of this Final Order Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received withm 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Fmal Order and must contain a bnef statement of the rssue(s) The fihng of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed However if Respondent submits payment for the civd penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the nght to petition for reconstderation is waived The terms and conditions of this Fmal Order are effective on receipt Sta Gerard Asso ate Administrator 7 5 for Pipeline Safety Date Issued#