{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320205008M","title":"ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-11-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.222(a), 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(e)(9), 195.428(a), 195.428(d), 195.452(b)(1), 195.452(b)(5), 195.555, 195.573(a)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205008m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205008m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205008m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320205008M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.222(a),  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(13),  195.402(c)(3),  195.402(e)(9),  195.428(a),  195.428(d),  195.452(b)(1),  195.452(b)(5),  195.555,  195.573(a)(2). The case was opened on 2020-11-20 and is reported as closed as of 2021-06-25. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320205008M_Closure Letter_06252021_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Closure%20Letter_06252021_(17-158844S).pdf\n\n320205008M_Closure Letter_06252021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Closure%20Letter_06252021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf\n\n320205008M_Notice of Amendment_11202020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_11202020.pdf\n\n320205008M_Notice of Amendment_11202020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_11202020_text.pdf\n\n320205008M_Operator Response to Notice_01192021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01192021.pdf\n\n320205008M_Closure Letter_06252021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: david.stafford@enbridge.com\nmichael.koby@enbridge.com and\nJune 25, 2021\nMr. Michael Koby\nVice President US Operations\nEnbridge Energy Inc.\n5400 Westheimer Ct.\nHouston, Texas 77056\nCPF 3-2020-5008M\nDear Mr. Koby:\nOn January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Enbridge Energy, LP procedures in Superior,\nWisconsin. As a result of the inspection, Enbridge Energy, LP was issued a Notice of Amendment\non November 20, 2020, which proposed amendment of your procedures.\nEnbridge Energy, LP submitted its amended procedures on May 20, 2021. My staff reviewed the\namended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment\nhave been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCopy: Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance, 119 N. 25th Street East,\nSuperior, WI 54880 david.stafford@enbridge.com\n\n320205008M_Notice of Amendment_11202020_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: david.stafford@enbridge.com\nNovember 20, 2020\nMr. Michael Koby\nVice President US Operations\nEnbridge Energy, LP\n5400 Westheimer Ct.\nHouston, Texas 77056\nmichael.koby@enbridge.com and\nCPF 3-2020-5008M\nDear Mr. Koby:\nOn January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\ninspected Enbridge Energy, LP procedures for operations and maintenance, public awareness,\nintegrity management and emergency response in Superior, Wisconsin.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nEnbridge Energy, LP plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding\noperators.\n\n\n\n(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6,\nsection 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference,\nsee § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME\nBPVC), (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) except that a welder or welding\noperator qualified under an earlier edition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may\nnot requalify under that earlier edition.\nEnbridge’s procedures were inadequate because an incorrect version of Section IX of\nASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) was referenced. Specifically,\nunder Book 4 “Welding Tests” - Subject No. 01-02-02, the 2011 edition of ASME BPVC\nwas referenced in Table 2 (Welder Performance Qualification Table-USA) as the\napplicable edition. However, 49 CFR §195.3 incorporates by reference the 2007 edition\nof ASME BPVC. Enbridge has submitted procedures that satisfactorily addressed this\nitem. No further action is required.\n2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nEnbridge's Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manual is inadequate because procedure\n\"09-03-02 Removing Water/Snow from Tank Roofs\" does not reflect the practice that is\nperformed in the field. The Cushing Tank Farm facility keeps all tank roof drains open at\nall times, including at night and on weekends. The procedure says the tank roof drains\nmust be checked every 30 minutes when open and that the tank roof drains and firewall\ndrains cannot be open at the same time or at night. Enbridge must amend its procedure to\nreflect the practice of keeping all tank roof drains open at all times in its O&M manual.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\n2\n\n\n\n§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\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 case\nof pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device,\nrelief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to\ndetermine 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’s procedure 03-07-03 in its O&M manual is inadequate because it does not\nrequire an inspection of the maintenance work order history to determine if a pressure\nsafety valve (PSV) is adequate from the standpoint of reliability of operation for the\nservice in which is it used. Specifically, a review of the maintenance work order history\nof a PSV would assist in determining whether it is repeatedly drifting off setpoint and\nwhether it should be replaced rather than adjusted. Additionally, procedure 03-07-03 does\nnot require an inspection of engineering setpoints in addition to nameplate setpoints to\nverify correct setpoint value before adjusting valve.\n4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\n§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\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 case\nof pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device,\nrelief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to\ndetermine 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.\n(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section\nfor inspection and testing of pressure control equipment apply to the inspection and\ntesting of overfill protection systems\n3\n\n\n\nEnbridge’s procedures are inadequate because the job plan (#EP2335Q) associated with\nperforming \"level & overfill protection devices\" for aboveground tanks cites the incorrect\nsubsection of the code. The job plan cites §195.428(c) rather than §195.428(a) and (d) for\nthe required inspection intervals for overfill protection systems. Enbridge must amend its\nprocedures to cite to the correct subsection of the code.\n5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\n§195.555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?\nYou must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that\nportion of the corrosion control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for\nwhich they are responsible for insuring compliance.\nEnbridge’s procedures were inadequate because they do not have a process to require and\nverify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of corrosion control procedures for\nwhich they are responsible for insuring compliance in accordance with §195.555. During\nthe inspection, PHMSA discovered that there were no procedures in place addressing\nqualifications for corrosion control supervisors. Enbridge has submitted procedures that\nsatisfactorily addressed this item. No further action is required.\n6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\n§195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic\nprotection required by this subpart complies with § 195.571:\n4\n\n\n\n7. (1) . . . . .\n(2) Identify not more than 2 years after cathodic protection is installed, the\ncircumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology is\npracticable and necessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of\nNACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nEnbridge’s procedure D04-101-2015 is inadequate because it only states Close Interval\nSurvey (CIS) is required within 2 years of application of cathodic protection (CP) on\nnewly constructed pipelines. However, the procedure does not indicate when the next CIS\nwould be required. Enbridge stated during the inspection that after the initial CIS is\ncomplete, it uses in-line inspection data to determine when the next CIS is required.\nEnbridge must amend its procedure to address when and how a CIS is determined to be\nrequired.\n§195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking\ncorrective action where deficiencies are found.\nEnbridge's O&M manual is inadequate because procedure 05-02-01 Procedure and\nTraining Effectiveness insufficiently addresses periodically reviewing the work done by\nthe operator's personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nSpecifically, Enbridge’s procedures does not do the following:\n1) The procedure does not define periodically or clearly state how often the effectiveness\nreview will take place.\n2) The procedure does not clearly indicate who will perform the effectiveness review.\nEnbridge uses Technical Committees for determining procedure effectiveness but the\nCommittees are also tasked with performing annual reviews using procedure 07-02-02\nOMM Annual Reviews. A review of the records showed that the focus of the\nTechnical Committee meetings is on annual reviews which is not an acceptable\nmethod of determining procedure effectiveness pursuant to §195.402(c)(13).\n3) Enbridge states that it encourages employees to submit proposed changes through the\nchange management site, however, this is not included in the procedure.\n4) 5) There are no documentation requirements mentioned within the procedure.\nThe procedure fails to detail clear guidelines on how a review of work done by\noperator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures should be done. A\nlist of possible methods of review are shown on the procedure but some of the methods\n5\n\n\n\n8. listed would not constitute an acceptable effectiveness review.\nEnbridge must amend its procedures to set forth a process that sufficiently addresses the\nrequirements of §195.402(c)(13), as well as the inadequacies listed above.\n§195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nand appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.\nThis manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system\ncommence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\n(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include\nprocedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs;\n(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether\nthe procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found.\nEnbridge’s procedures are inadequate regarding post accident review of employee\nactivities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found. During PHMSA’s inspection,\nEnbridge presented its Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) as the applicable procedures for\n§195.402(e)(9). In replies to OPS Central Region, on April 20, 2018 and December 5,\n2018, Enbridge asserted that “emergency” is not defined in 49 CFR Part 195. Enbridge\nused the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) definition of an\nemergency response per 29 CFR §1910.120(a)(3) for when a post accident review is to be\nperformed.\nHowever, the definition used by Enbridge does not correspond to §195.402(e)(2) which\nrequires an operator to have procedures for: “Prompt and effective response to a notice of\neach type emergency, including fire or explosion occurring near or directly involving a\npipeline facility, accidental release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a pipeline\nfacility, operational failure causing a hazardous condition, and natural disaster affecting\npipeline facilities.” Multiple types of emergencies are described in §195.402(e)(2), and is\nnot limited to spills or responses of a certain size. Therefore, Enbridge must amend its\nprocedures for §195.402(e)(9) so that a post accident review of employee activities is\nperformed after emergencies occur, as described in 49 CFR Part 195, to determine if the\nprocedures were effective and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\n6\n\n\n\n9. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . . .\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity? Each\noperator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the risks on each\nsegment of pipeline in the first column of the following table not later than the date in\nthe second column:\nPipeline Date\nCategory 1 March 31, 2002.\nCategory 2 February 18, 2003.\nCategory 3 1 year after the date the pipeline begins operation.\n(5) Implement and follow the program.\nEnbridge’s IMP is inadequate because it its employees no longer use the procedures\nlibrary referenced in the plan. Per Enbridge’s Risk Management personnel, Enbridge no\nlonger uses or maintains the ORM Procedures Library referenced in several of its IMP risk\nprocedures. This change occurred with Enbridge’s shift to a company-wide Governance\nDocuments Library. Now a list of the data sources for each of the different variables used\nin the risk model is maintained in an Excel file. Enbridge must update all appropriate IMP\nrisk procedures to account for the new system.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed\nas part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nEnforcement 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\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must 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\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\n7\n\n\n\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. 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\nin this Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If\nyour plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to\namend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are\nnot contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for\ngood cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended\nprocedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enbridge maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures) and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this\nmatter, please refer to CPF 3-2020-5008M and, for each document you submit, please\nprovide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\nCopy:\nDave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance, 119 N. 25th Street East,\nSuperior, WI 54880 david.stafford@enbridge.com\n8","truncated":false,"body_characters":20368}