# ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — Notice of Amendment

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320205008M_Closure Letter_06252021_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Closure%20Letter_06252021_(17-158844S).pdf

320205008M_Closure Letter_06252021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Closure%20Letter_06252021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

320205008M_Notice of Amendment_11202020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_11202020.pdf

320205008M_Notice of Amendment_11202020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_11202020_text.pdf

320205008M_Operator Response to Notice_01192021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205008M/320205008M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01192021.pdf

320205008M_Closure Letter_06252021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: david.stafford@enbridge.com
michael.koby@enbridge.com and
June 25, 2021
Mr. Michael Koby
Vice President US Operations
Enbridge Energy Inc.
5400 Westheimer Ct.
Houston, Texas 77056
CPF 3-2020-5008M
Dear Mr. Koby:
On January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Enbridge Energy, LP procedures in Superior,
Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, Enbridge Energy, LP was issued a Notice of Amendment
on November 20, 2020, which proposed amendment of your procedures.
Enbridge Energy, LP submitted its amended procedures on May 20, 2021. My staff reviewed the
amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment
have been corrected.
This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Copy: Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance, 119 N. 25th Street East,
Superior, WI 54880 david.stafford@enbridge.com

320205008M_Notice of Amendment_11202020_text.pdf

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: david.stafford@enbridge.com
November 20, 2020
Mr. Michael Koby
Vice President US Operations
Enbridge Energy, LP
5400 Westheimer Ct.
Houston, Texas 77056
michael.koby@enbridge.com and
CPF 3-2020-5008M
Dear Mr. Koby:
On January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code
inspected Enbridge Energy, LP procedures for operations and maintenance, public awareness,
integrity management and emergency response in Superior, Wisconsin.
On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within
Enbridge Energy, LP plans or procedures, as described below:
1. §195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding
operators.



(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6,
section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference,
see § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME
BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) except that a welder or welding
operator qualified under an earlier edition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may
not requalify under that earlier edition.
Enbridge’s procedures were inadequate because an incorrect version of Section IX of
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) was referenced. Specifically,
under Book 4 “Welding Tests” - Subject No. 01-02-02, the 2011 edition of ASME BPVC
was referenced in Table 2 (Welder Performance Qualification Table-USA) as the
applicable edition. However, 49 CFR §195.3 incorporates by reference the 2007 edition
of ASME BPVC. Enbridge has submitted procedures that satisfactorily addressed this
item. No further action is required.
2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
Enbridge's Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manual is inadequate because procedure
"09-03-02 Removing Water/Snow from Tank Roofs" does not reflect the practice that is
performed in the field. The Cushing Tank Farm facility keeps all tank roof drains open at
all times, including at night and on weekends. The procedure says the tank roof drains
must be checked every 30 minutes when open and that the tank roof drains and firewall
drains cannot be open at the same time or at night. Enbridge must amend its procedure to
reflect the practice of keeping all tank roof drains open at all times in its O&M manual.
3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
2



§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case
of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months,
but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device,
relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to
determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is
adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service
in which it is used.
Enbridge’s procedure 03-07-03 in its O&M manual is inadequate because it does not
require an inspection of the maintenance work order history to determine if a pressure
safety valve (PSV) is adequate from the standpoint of reliability of operation for the
service in which is it used. Specifically, a review of the maintenance work order history
of a PSV would assist in determining whether it is repeatedly drifting off setpoint and
whether it should be replaced rather than adjusted. Additionally, procedure 03-07-03 does
not require an inspection of engineering setpoints in addition to nameplate setpoints to
verify correct setpoint value before adjusting valve.
4. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case
of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months,
but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device,
relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to
determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is
adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service
in which it is used.
(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
for inspection and testing of pressure control equipment apply to the inspection and
testing of overfill protection systems
3



Enbridge’s procedures are inadequate because the job plan (#EP2335Q) associated with
performing "level & overfill protection devices" for aboveground tanks cites the incorrect
subsection of the code. The job plan cites §195.428(c) rather than §195.428(a) and (d) for
the required inspection intervals for overfill protection systems. Enbridge must amend its
procedures to cite to the correct subsection of the code.
5. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
§195.555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?
You must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that
portion of the corrosion control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for
which they are responsible for insuring compliance.
Enbridge’s procedures were inadequate because they do not have a process to require and
verify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of corrosion control procedures for
which they are responsible for insuring compliance in accordance with §195.555. During
the inspection, PHMSA discovered that there were no procedures in place addressing
qualifications for corrosion control supervisors. Enbridge has submitted procedures that
satisfactorily addressed this item. No further action is required.
6. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
§195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic
protection required by this subpart complies with § 195.571:
4



7. (1) . . . . .
(2) Identify not more than 2 years after cathodic protection is installed, the
circumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology is
practicable and necessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of
NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
Enbridge’s procedure D04-101-2015 is inadequate because it only states Close Interval
Survey (CIS) is required within 2 years of application of cathodic protection (CP) on
newly constructed pipelines. However, the procedure does not indicate when the next CIS
would be required. Enbridge stated during the inspection that after the initial CIS is
complete, it uses in-line inspection data to determine when the next CIS is required.
Enbridge must amend its procedure to address when and how a CIS is determined to be
required.
§195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking
corrective action where deficiencies are found.
Enbridge's O&M manual is inadequate because procedure 05-02-01 Procedure and
Training Effectiveness insufficiently addresses periodically reviewing the work done by
the operator's personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal
operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
Specifically, Enbridge’s procedures does not do the following:
1) The procedure does not define periodically or clearly state how often the effectiveness
review will take place.
2) The procedure does not clearly indicate who will perform the effectiveness review.
Enbridge uses Technical Committees for determining procedure effectiveness but the
Committees are also tasked with performing annual reviews using procedure 07-02-02
OMM Annual Reviews. A review of the records showed that the focus of the
Technical Committee meetings is on annual reviews which is not an acceptable
method of determining procedure effectiveness pursuant to §195.402(c)(13).
3) Enbridge states that it encourages employees to submit proposed changes through the
change management site, however, this is not included in the procedure.
4) 5) There are no documentation requirements mentioned within the procedure.
The procedure fails to detail clear guidelines on how a review of work done by
operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures should be done. A
list of possible methods of review are shown on the procedure but some of the methods
5



8. listed would not constitute an acceptable effectiveness review.
Enbridge must amend its procedures to set forth a process that sufficiently addresses the
requirements of §195.402(c)(13), as well as the inadequacies listed above.
§195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be
reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,
and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.
This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system
commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include
procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs;
(9) Providing for a post accident review of employee activities to determine whether
the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where
deficiencies are found.
Enbridge’s procedures are inadequate regarding post accident review of employee
activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and
taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. During PHMSA’s inspection,
Enbridge presented its Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) as the applicable procedures for
§195.402(e)(9). In replies to OPS Central Region, on April 20, 2018 and December 5,
2018, Enbridge asserted that “emergency” is not defined in 49 CFR Part 195. Enbridge
used the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) definition of an
emergency response per 29 CFR §1910.120(a)(3) for when a post accident review is to be
performed.
However, the definition used by Enbridge does not correspond to §195.402(e)(2) which
requires an operator to have procedures for: “Prompt and effective response to a notice of
each type emergency, including fire or explosion occurring near or directly involving a
pipeline facility, accidental release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide from a pipeline
facility, operational failure causing a hazardous condition, and natural disaster affecting
pipeline facilities.” Multiple types of emergencies are described in §195.402(e)(2), and is
not limited to spills or responses of a certain size. Therefore, Enbridge must amend its
procedures for §195.402(e)(9) so that a post accident review of employee activities is
performed after emergencies occur, as described in 49 CFR Part 195, to determine if the
procedures were effective and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
6



9. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . . .
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity? Each
operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:
(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the risks on each
segment of pipeline in the first column of the following table not later than the date in
the second column:
Pipeline Date
Category 1 March 31, 2002.
Category 2 February 18, 2003.
Category 3 1 year after the date the pipeline begins operation.
(5) Implement and follow the program.
Enbridge’s IMP is inadequate because it its employees no longer use the procedures
library referenced in the plan. Per Enbridge’s Risk Management personnel, Enbridge no
longer uses or maintains the ORM Procedures Library referenced in several of its IMP risk
procedures. This change occurred with Enbridge’s shift to a company-wide Governance
Documents Library. Now a list of the data sources for each of the different variables used
in the risk model is maintained in an Excel file. Enbridge must update all appropriate IMP
risk procedures to account for the new system.
Response to this Notice
This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed
as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Enforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies
for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document
you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
7



Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised
procedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days
of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged
in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If
your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to
amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are
not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for
good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended
procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.
It is requested (not mandated) that Enbridge maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision
of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this
matter, please refer to CPF 3-2020-5008M and, for each document you submit, please
provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
Copy:
Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance, 119 N. 25th Street East,
Superior, WI 54880 david.stafford@enbridge.com
8
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 20368