{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320075022","title":"NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-08-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.406(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075022.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075022.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075022","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320075022","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.406(b). The case was opened on 2007-08-21 and is reported as closed as of 2009-06-17. Proposed civil penalty: $105,000. Assessed civil penalty: $105,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320075022_FinalOrder_06022009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075022/320075022_FinalOrder_06022009.pdf\n\n320075022_FinalOrder_06022009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075022/320075022_FinalOrder_06022009_text.pdf\n\n320075022_NOPV PCP_08212007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075022/320075022_NOPV%20PCP_08212007.pdf\n\n320075022_nopv pcp_08212007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075022/320075022_nopv%20pcp_08212007_text.pdf\n\n320075022_operator response to NOPV and PCP_09182007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075022/320075022_operator%20response%20to%20NOPV%20and%20PCP_09182007.pdf\n\n320075022_FinalOrder_06022009_text.pdf\n\nJUN 02 2009\nMr. Brian Johnson\nNorth Dakota Manager\nEnbridge Pipelines LLC-North Dakota\n1100 Louisiana, Suite 3200\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF 3-2007-5022\nDear Mr. Johnson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $105,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final\nOrder constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Ivan Huntoon, Director, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0046 9525]\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 )\nEnbridge Pipelines LLC- ) CPF No. 3-2007-5022\nNorth Dakota, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an investigation of an incident\ninvolving a spill of approximately 9,030 gallons of crude oil from a pipeline operated by\nEnbridge Pipelines LLC-North Dakota (Enbridge or Respondent) near Stanley, North Dakota.\nEnbridge operates a 558-mile pipeline system that delivers crude oil from northwest North\nDakota to Clearbrook, Minnesota.\nThe accident occurred on January 25, 2007, at the company’s Stanley Pump Station, and\ninvolved a section of crude oil piping that had been temporarily idled during a construction\n(Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated August 21, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation\nand Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproject.1 As a result of the subsequent OPS investigation, the Director, Central Region, OPS\nproposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $105,000 for the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 18, 2007 (Response). Enbridge\ndid not contest the allegation of violation but offered information and explanations regarding the\nproposed penalty and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 The spill was contained on site and did not migrate to any water sources or underground wells. See, OPS\nViolation Report, at 3.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Enbridge did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which in relevant\npart states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) . . .\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or\nother variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each\noperator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to control\nthe pressure within this limit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure in its\npipeline during surges or other variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\nline at the Stanley Pump Station to exceed 110% of the line’s maximum operating pressure by\nfailing to provide a pressure relief device on an isolated section. As part of the construction\nproject that began in November, 2006, the company had isolated the section of line by installing\nline’s maximum operating pressure.2 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge allowed a\na blind flange on one end and a one-way check valve on the other. On January 25, 2007, the\noutside temperature increased significantly, thereby causing the pressure in the isolated line to\nexceed 100% of its specified minimum yield strength (1470 psig) and the pipe to fail.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), as more fully described in\nthe Notice.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\n2 The maximum operating pressure of the line was 980 psig. See, Violation Report, at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $105,000 for violation of § 195.406(b). Providing\nadequate pressure control is a key part of maintaining pipeline safety and protecting the\nenvironment. Pipeline operators are obligated to ensure that the maximum operating pressure of\ntheir lines is not exceeded because damage and failures can result, as occurred in this case. In its\nResponse, Enbridge requested a reduction or elimination of the civil penalty based upon: (1) the\ncompany’s prompt response to the accident, including cleanup; (2) the corrective actions it\ninitiated after the accident to prevent similar accidents; (3) the minimal impact that the accident\nhad on public safety and the environment; (4) its cooperative response to the OPS investigation;\nand (5) its compliance history.\nThe corrective actions to which Respondent refers, however, were taken after the accident had\nalready occurred. It is true that PHMSA considers any “good faith” efforts in calculating and\nassessing civil penalties, but only for those actions that an operator has taken in a reasonable\nattempt to achieve compliance. Once an accident has occurred or a violation has been\ndiscovered, PHMSA would expect any prudent and responsible operator to cooperate in\npreventing another accident or violation.\nWith respect to Respondent’s contention that the release’s impacts on public safety and the\nenvironment were minimal, I would note that virtually any release of hazardous liquids from a\npipeline can result in serious risk of injury. In this case, the pipeline ruptured and released\napproximately 9,030 gallons of crude oil into the environment. Respondent is fortunate that no\ngreater environmental harm or physical injury occurred. The record indicates that at least one\nEnbridge employee was on site at the time of the incident and therefore could have been injured.\nThere is no evidence to suggest that Respondent lacks the ability to pay the penalty or that its\nimposition could affect the company’s ability to continue doing business. Respondent has\npresented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty proposed in the\nNotice. Respondent’s past compliance history was taken into account in formulating the initial\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $105,000 for violating §195.406(b).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\n\n\n\n4\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days\nof Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).\nThe filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However\nif Respondent submits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and\nconditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":10416}