{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320125020","title":"ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (TOLEDO) INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-09-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412, 195.428(a), 195.432(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320125020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (TOLEDO) INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.412,  195.428(a),  195.432(d). The case was opened on 2012-09-13 and is reported as closed as of 2016-06-03. Proposed civil penalty: $68,600. Assessed civil penalty: $68,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320125020_Closure Letter_06032016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_Closure%20Letter_06032016.pdf\n\n320125020_Closure Letter_06032016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_Closure%20Letter_06032016_text.pdf\n\n320125020_Final Order_08222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_Final%20Order_08222013.pdf\n\n320125020_Final Order_08222013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_Final%20Order_08222013_text.pdf\n\n320125020_NOPV PCP PCO_09132012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09132012.pdf\n\n320125020_NOPV PCP PCO_09132012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09132012_text.pdf\n\n320125020_Operator Response to Notice_10122012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125020/320125020_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10122012.pdf\n\n320125020_NOPV PCP PCO_09132012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nUPS NEXT DAY AIR and FACSIMILE\nSeptember 13, 2012\nMr. Richard Adams\nVice President U.S. Operations\nEnbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc.\nCity Center Office\n1409 Hammond Avenue\nSuperior, WI 54880-5247\nCPF 3-2012-5020\nDear Mr. Adams:\nOn July 12-15, 2010, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your 16-\ninch crude oil pipeline from Stockbridge, Michigan to Oregon, Ohio.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each\ncalendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline\nright-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other\nappropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\n\n\n\nEnbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc. {Enbridge} failed to adequately inspect the surface\nconditions at the main line valve located at Hoffman Road (Toledo) at an interval not\nexceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. The valve location was\novergrown with brush.\nRecords indicate the pipeline was inspected by aerial patrol. During PHMSA’s field\ninspection, the main line valve located at Hoffman Road was observed to be\novergrown with small trees and brush; therefore, the surface conditions of this section\nof pipeline was not adequately inspected during the aerial patrols.\n2. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection system\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the\ncase of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting\ndevice, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment\nto determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nEnbridge failed to inspect the overpressure safety devices at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year. The inspection intervals exceeded the\nmaximum 15 month interval by 14-24 days for each of the following overpressure safety\ndevices:\n1. VA170197-08 – 24 days\n2. VA170197-02 – 24 days\n3. VA170197-07 – 24 days\n4. VA197173 -9 – 24 days\n5. VA0168708-49 – 24 days\n6. VA0168708-39 – 24 days\n7. VA0168708-18 – 24 days\n8. VA0168718-21 – 24 days\n9. Britton 30304-1 – 24 days\n10. Danflo 800-PSE-1 – 17 days\n11. FB#1 4684-1 – 14 days\n12. FB#2 4684-2 – 14 days\n2\n\n\n\n3. §195.432 (d) Inspection of in-service breakout tanks\n(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs (b)\nand (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last recorded date\nof the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nEnbridge failed to perform internal inspections or establish a corrosion rate for the\nbottom plates of the following tanks within the 10 year period prescribed by API\nStandard 653, and exceeded the maximum internal inspection interval for tanks 300-TK-\n80 and 300-TK-81. API 653 Section 6.4.2 describes the method for establishing the\ninspection intervals for internal inspections. Section 6.4.2 requires the calculation of the\ninternal inspection intervals in accordance with Section 4.4.7 of the standard, with a\nmaximum internal inspection interval of 20 years. If, however, the corrosion rates are\nunknown, the maximum inspection interval is not to exceed 10 years, unless similar\nservice experience is available to estimate the bottom plate thickness at the next\ninspection. Enbridge failed to demonstrate that they had established a basis for the\ncorrosion rate for the tank bottoms listed above; and exceeded the 10 year maximum\ninternal inspection interval for unknown corrosion rates. Additionally, Enbridge did not\nhave similar service experience, or procedures to apply similar service experience\navailable to make this inspection interval determination.\nThe records reviewed demonstrate the last internal inspection performed for Tank #300-\nTK-80 was performed on June 25, 1998. Tank#300-TK-81 was put into service in 1999\nand an internal inspection was not performed until 2011. No calculations were provided\nthat establishes a corrosion rate for the bottom plate. Inspection dates for future internal\nand external inspections on these tanks have been provided to PHMSA.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 3, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed\n$1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $68,600 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $39,000\n3 $29,600\n3\n\n\n\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 1, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Failure to do so may\nresult in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 2 and 3 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enbridge.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2012-5020 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc. {Enbridge} a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance\nof Enbridge with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of overpressure\nsafety devices, Enbridge shall submit documentation of all inspections performed on\neach of the devices listed in Item Number 2 from 2010 to present.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of overpressure\nsafety devices, Enbridge shall submit the required documentation within 30 days after\nreceipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of in-service\nbreakout tanks, Enbridge shall internally inspect each of the tanks in accordance with\nthe inspection dates proposed by Enbridge and submit copies of the API 653\ninspection reports for Tanks 80 and 81.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to the internal inspection of in-\nservice breakout tanks, Enbridge shall submit the required documentation within 30\ndays after receipt of the Final Order. If the 2012 inspection for Tank 80 has not been\ncompleted, the inspection record shall be submitted within 30 days after completion\nof the internal inspection.\nIt is requested that Enbridge maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to David Barrett,\nDirector, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It\nis 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\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n320125020_Final Order_08222013_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 22, 2013\nMr. Terrance L. McGill\nPresident\nEnbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc.\n1100 Louisiana St., Ste. 3300\nHouston, TX 77002-5217\nRe: CPF No. 3-2012-5020\nDear Mr. McGill:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $68,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nEnbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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)\nEnbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc., ) CPF No. 3-2012-5020\na subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 12-15, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of certain facilities and records of Enbridge\nPipelines (Toledo) Inc. (Enbridge or Respondent). The inspection included physical inspection\nof a 16-inch diameter pipeline running approximately 88 miles from Stockbridge, Michigan to\nOregon, Ohio, and records inspection at Respondent’s offices in Griffith, Indiana.\n1\nRespondent, a Canadian company incorporated in Delaware, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of\nEnbridge, Inc.,2 a transporter of crude oil with approximately 15,294 miles of pipelines\ndelivering on average more than 2.2 million barrels per day of crude oil and other products.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 13, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Enbridge\nhad violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.412(a), 195.428 and 195.432(d), and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $68,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further\naction, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement\naction.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (September 12, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 Enbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc., Annual Report , 12 (FERC Form No. 6), FERC Accession No. 20130419-8087\n(Apr. 18, 2013) available at http://elibrary ferc.gov/.\n3 Enbridge, Liquid Pipelines, available at\nhttp://www.enbridge.com/DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/LiquidsPipelines.aspx (last accessed July 23, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nEnbridge Energy Company, Inc.,4 responded to the Notice on behalf of Enbridge by letter dated\nOctober, 12, 2012 (Response). The company provided an explanation of its actions and\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken, and requested reconsideration of the\nalleged violations, proposed civil penalties and proposed compliance order. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection system\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it\nis functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate\nfrom the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428 by failing to inspect each\npressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, and other item of pressure control\nequipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge’s inspection intervals exceeded the maximum 15-\nmonth interval by 14 days on two overpressure safety devices, by 17 days on one overpressure\nsafety device, and by 24 days on nine overpressure safety devices.\nIn its Response, Enbridge acknowledged that the maximum inspection interval had been\nexceeded by 14-24 days and did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428 by\nfailing to inspect each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, and other item of\npressure control equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear.\n4 Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Enbridge Inc. Enbridge Energy\nPartners, L.P., Amendment No. 2 to Schedule 13D (May 8, 2013) available at\nhttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880285/000119312513224471/d542746dsc13da htm.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(d), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if\nstructural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom\nintegrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations\nand maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).\n(c) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service steel\naboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 according to\nsection 6 of API 510.\n(d) The intervals of inspection by documents referenced in paragraphs\n(b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator’s last\nrecorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(d) by failing to inspect two in-\nservice atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to the\nintervals of inspection in API Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enbridge\nexceeded the maximum internal inspection interval for tanks 300-TK-80 and 300-TK-81. For\nthose tanks, Enbridge lacked records indicating that it had estimated the corrosion rates for the\ntank bottoms or the bottom plate thickness. In that circumstance, API 653 limits the maximum\ninspection interval to 10 years. Enbridge’s records showed that the last internal inspection for\ntank 300-TK-80 was performed on June 25, 1998 and that tank 300-TK-81, which entered\nservice in 1999, did not have an internal inspection until 2011.\nIn its response, Enbridge explained that it had made internal procedural changes to correct the\nhistorical timing issues related to the tank re-inspection intervals, but did not refute the allegation\nthat the applicable intervals were exceeded for the specified tanks. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(d) by failing to\nperform internal inspections of in-service breakout tanks according to the intervals of inspection\nin API Standard 653. To the extent Respondent’s explanations may be relevant to the proposed\ncivil penalty amount for this item, they will be addressed in the Assessment of Penalty section\nbelow.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\n\n\n\n4\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $68,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $39,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to inspect each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, and other item of pressure control equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this\nviolation, timely inspection of these devices is a key part of pipeline safety because their\nmalfunction can cause or contribute to a release incident. Respondent is culpable for this\nviolation in light of the fact that there were 12 different instances each exceeding the maximum\n15-month interval by 14-24 days and the pipeline’s safe operation could have been compromised\nin a populated area. I recognize that Enbridge now uses the Maximo work management system\nto schedule compliance-related tasks and that, since the inspection, employees have undergone\nadditional training in using the system to appropriately assign and complete maintenance tasks.\nHowever, this does not diminish Respondent’s culpability at the time of the violation or\nconstitute a good faith effort to comply prior to the violation. Enbridge did not present any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$39,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,600 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(d), for failing to inspect two in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel\naboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, timely tank inspections are essential to ensuring that\ntank failures do not occur because tank failures can have serious consequences. I recognize that\nEnbridge has communicated with OPS in the past and began taking steps under a Corrective\nAction Order to evaluate the corrosion rate and revise the inspection intervals for Tanks 80 and\n81 to meet the requirements of API 653. Nevertheless, for the relevant period reviewed during\nthe OPS inspection, the tanks were still out of compliance with the applicable inspection interval.\nEnbridge has not presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(d).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $68,600.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to 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\n\n\n\n5\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $68,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to adequately\ninspect the surface conditions at the main line valve at Hoffman Road (Toledo) at\nan interval not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year.\nEnbridge presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.428 and 195.432(d), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.428(a) (Item 2), pertaining to the inspection\nof safety devices, Respondent must submit documentation of all inspections\nperformed on each of the devices listed in Item 2 of the Notice from 2010 to present.\nRespondent must submit the required documentation within 30 days after receipt of\nthis Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(d)(Item 3), pertaining to the inspection\nof in-service breakout tanks, Respondent must internally inspect each of the tanks in\naccordance with the inspection dates proposed by Enbridge and submit copies of the\nAPI 653 inspection reports for Tanks 80 and 81. Respondent must submit the\nrequired documentation within 30 days after the receipt of this Order. If the 2012\n\n\n\n6\ninspection for Tank 80 has not been completed, the inspection record must be\nsubmitted within 30 days after completion of the internal inspection.\n3. PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to the Director. PHMSA requests that Respondent report these costs in two\ncategories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies, and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with personnel training or any\nphysical changes to pipeline facilities and infrastructure.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate\nAdministrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,\n2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at\nthe same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of\nservice of this Final Order by Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of the petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service\nin accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320125020_Closure Letter_06032016_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 3, 2016\nMr. Terrance L. McGill\nPresident\nEnbridge Pipelines (Toledo), Inc.\n1100 Louisiana St., Ste. 3300\nHouston, TX 77002-5217\nCPF 3-2012-5020\nDear Mr. McGill:\nOn August 22, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Enbridge Pipelines (Toledo), Inc., a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, 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,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":29737}