# ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320205009
- **title:** ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2020-11-19
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.116(e), 195.401(b)(1), 195.402(a), 195.402(e)(9), 195.412(a), 195.428(a), 195.432(b), 195.573(e), 195.581, 195.581(a), 195.581(c), 195.583.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205009.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205009.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320205009
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320205009
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.116(e),  195.401(b)(1),  195.402(a),  195.402(e)(9),  195.412(a),  195.428(a),  195.432(b),  195.573(e),  195.581,  195.581(a),  195.581(c),  195.583. The case was opened on 2020-11-19 and is reported as closed as of 2025-03-05. Proposed civil penalty: $122,100. Assessed civil penalty: $98,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320205009_Closure Letter_03052025_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Closure%20Letter_03052025_(17-158844S).pdf

320205009_Closure Letter_03052025_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Closure%20Letter_03052025_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

320205009_Closure Letter_12222021_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Closure%20Letter_12222021_(17-158844S).pdf

320205009_Closure Letter_12222021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Closure%20Letter_12222021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

320205009_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S).pdf

320205009_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_12212021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Final%20Order_08092021_(17-158844S).pdf

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Final%20Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11192020.pdf

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11192020_text.pdf

320205009_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_08302021_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_08302021_(17-158844S).pdf

320205009_Operator Response to Notice_01192021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01192021.pdf

320205009_Region Requests Compliance Reopen Case_12022022_(17-158844S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Region%20Requests%20Compliance%20Reopen%20Case_12022022_(17-158844S).pdf

320205009_Region Requests Compliance Reopen Case_12022022_(17-158844S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320205009/320205009_Region%20Requests%20Compliance%20Reopen%20Case_12022022_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

320205009_Closure Letter_03052025_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kevin.ruffatto@enbridge.com; stacy.soine@enbridge.com;
jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com
March 5, 2025
Mr. Kevin Ruffatto
Vice President, U.S. Operations
Enbridge Energy, L.P.
5400 Westheimer Court
Houston, TX 77056
RE: CPF 3-2020-5009-NOPV
Dear Mr. Ruffatto:
On August 9, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213, issued to Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge) a Final Order that made
findings of violations, assessed a reduced civil penalty of $98,900, and specified actions to be taken
by Enbridge to comply with the pipeline safety regulations in the above-referenced case. On
August 30, 2021, Enbridge filed a Petition for Reconsideration, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.243. On
December 21, 2021, PHMSA issued, pursuant to 49 CFR 190.243(d), its Decision on the Petition
for Reconsideration granting Respondent’s Petition, in part, by withdrawing the disputed statement
from the Final Order. The Final Order included a Compliance Order and a Civil Penalty assessment
requirement that were not adjusted on reconsideration.
Previously, a closure letter was inadvertently sent to Enbridge in this case. By letter dated December
2, 2022, Enbridge was notified that this enforcement action was still open pending completion of Item
10 of the Compliance Order. Based on PHMSA’s review of the additional documentation provided,
and Enbridge’s payment of the civil penalty on August 31, 2021, it has been determined that Enbridge
has complied with all terms of the Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Stacy Soine, Advisor Regulatory Compliance (stacy.soine@enbridge.com)
Jeff Cremin, Manager US Pipeline Compliance (jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com)

320205009_NOPV PCP PCO_11192020_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: david.stafford@enbridge.com
michael.koby@enbridge.com and
November 19, 2020
Mr. Michael Koby
Vice President US Operations
Enbridge Energy, LP
5400 Westheimer Ct.
Houston, Texas 77056
CPF 3-2020-5009
Dear Mr. Koby:
On January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Enbridge Energy LP’s (Enbridge)
Lakehead and Flanagan system assets and records in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana and New York.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items
inspected and the probable violations are:



1. §195.116 Valves.
(a) . . .
(e) Each valve other than a check valve must be equipped with a means for
clearly indicating the position of the valve (open, closed, etc.).
Enbridge failed to maintain a means for clearly indicating the position of the valves. Nine of
Enbridge’s valves noted below were identified during PHMSA’s field inspections as not
having a clear means of indicating the valve position. Enbridge’s design standard EES124,
copied in relevant part below, states that the valve stem position indicator shall have a stem
protector of heavy, transparent, UV-resistant plastic. The identified protectors were not
transparent due smoke coloring or grease preventing clear indication of the valve stem
position.
4.11.2
The Vendor shall provide a rising stem position indicator with a stem protector of heavy,
transparent, UV-resistant plastic. A 3 mm (0.125 in.) vent hole shall be drilled in the
transparent plastic cover on a 45° angle to prevent condensation and water ingress.
Unit Valve Comments
Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City Bay City 532.74-6V 536.42-6-V 576.92-6-V 607.62 638.45-6-V 576.82-6-V 6-UD-V-21 SK-6-SV-3 6-TBV-2 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
All valves listed above are located on Line 78 between the Illinois border and the Stockbridge,
Michigan pump and tank station with the earliest installation date being 2014. This line
section is new 36” pipe, which is larger than the old line 6B, so all the valves are 2014 or
newer.
2. §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
2



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.
Enbridge failed to review its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once calendar year. During PHMSA’s records inspection, the inspector
found that Enbridge did not review the following procedures in 2017. Specifically, Enbridge
did not review Book 3 08-03-02 through 08-03-21 in calendar year 2017 and was unable to
provide documentation of such review that contained was signed and dated as required by
Enbridge’s procedures
3. §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.
(b) . . . .
(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;
(1) . . . .
(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 failed to conduct a post-accident review of employee activities for one pipeline
accident, which resulted in a release of hazardous liquid, that occurred on February 29,2016
on the Lakehead system, that was reported to PHMSA on DOT Form 7000-1 [see §195.54].
During PHMSA’s inspection, Enbridge presented its Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) as the
applicable emergency 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. However, § 195.402(e)(2) requires an
operator to have procedures for responding to “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.” Section 195.402(e)(2)
3



unambiguously delineates multiple types of emergencies are including, but not limited to, an
“accidental release of hazardous liquid.” Therefore, Enbridge failed to conduct a post-
accident review of employee activities for the one reportable pipeline accident which involved
a release of hazardous liquid on Enbridge’s Lakehead system, in order to determine whether
the emergency procedures were effective and corrective actions were taken where deficiencies
were found.
4. §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 failed to inspect and test each overpressure safety device, at intervals not exceeding
15 months, but at least each calendar year, to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity. Specifically, the
five (5) pressure safety devices listed below were not inspected and tested within the required
time period as identified during PHMSA’s records inspection.
Pressure Safety
Valve
In Service Date First Inspection Date Comments
FN-203-PSV-11 November 2015 June 2017 Missed 2016 inspection
FN-203-PSV-21 November 2015 June 2017 Missed 2016 inspection
FN-203-PSV-31 November 2015 June 2017 Missed 2016 inspection
Transmitter
SK-207-PT-1BD 1-7-16 4-22-17 SK-208-PT-1BS 1-7-16 4-22-17 Regulatory interval of 15
month was exceeded by 15
days
Regulatory interval of 15
month was exceeded by 15
days
4



5. §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 did not, 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 (HVLs), at intervals not to exceed
7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, test and inspect each pressure limiting
device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to
determine that it had adequate capacity from the standpoint of capacity for the service in
which it was used. Specifically, PHMSA’s records inspection found that a total of 39 devices
(i.e. HVL pressure relief valve full flow (PRVFF) and non-HVL PRVFF) in the Lakehead
system did not have a calculated capacity review to determine them to be adequate from the
standpoint of capacity for the service in which it was used from 2016 through 2017 as listed in
the table below. A total of 98 capacity checks for adequacy were not performed in accordance
with the regulation and Enbridge’s procedure, “Pressure Control Valve Capacity and
Reliability Assessment.” The following table details how these figures were calculated.
System Type Number Number of
years
(2016-2017)
Require # of Tests
or Capacity
checks per year
Lakehead HVL PRVFF 10 2 2 40
Total
Lakehead Non-HVL PRVFF 29 1 2 58
Lakehead Total 98
6. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times
each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline
right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other
appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
5



Enbridge failed to conduct an effective inspection of the surface conditions on or adjacent to
each pipeline right-of-way. Specifically, Enbridge used aerial patrol inspection methods, but
at the time of the inspection, the locations noted below were found with vegetation
overgrowth such that surface of the right-of-way was not visible by aerial patrol.1 The
following three locations on Enbridges’ pipeline right-of-way had excess growth and tree
canopy blocking aerial visibility of the surface conditions:
Unit MP Description Comments
Fort Atkinson
(Wisconsin)
360.903 At MP 360.903 there was an
issue with ROW Clearance
Dense cover restricting
aerial view of ground on
ROW
Line 5
(Michigan)
Line 5
(Michigan)
1429.289 ROW needs clearing 1436.91 West side of this exposure needs
ROW clearing
Aerial view of ground
restricted by foliage.
Dense cover for 100 feet
each side of this exposure.
7. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) . . .
(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric
and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653
(except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the
tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the
operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk- based
internal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to
determine the internal inspection interval.
Section 6 of API Standard 653 3rd Edition, December 2001
6.3.1 Routine In-Service Inspections
6.3.1.1 The external condition of the tank shall be monitored by close visual inspection
from the ground on a routine basis. This inspection may be done by owner/operator
personnel, and can be done by other than authorized inspectors as defined in 3.6.
Personnel performing this inspection should be knowledgeable of the storage facility
operations, the tank, and the characteristics of the product stored.
1 Photographs illustrating the overgrowth on Enbridge’s rights-of-way are found in Exhibit D to the Pipeline
Safety Violation Report.
6



6.3.1.2 The interval of such inspections shall be consistent with conditions at the
particular site, but shall not exceed one month.
6.3.1.3 This routine in-service inspection shall include a visual inspection of the tank’s
exterior surfaces. Evidence of leaks; shell distortions; signs of settlement; corrosion;
and condition of the foundation, paint coatings, insulation systems, and appurtenances
should be documented for follow-up action by an authorized inspector.
Enbridge violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to adequately inspect the physical
integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks
according to API Std. 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval).
Specifically, Enbridge’s annual inspection records documented deficiencies on three above
ground breakout tanks in Superior, Wisconsin that should have been documented and
addressed in the company’s monthly pursuant to Enbridge Procedure 09-02-02.
Enbridge Procedure 09-02-02, dated 05-01-2014, outlines the steps that the company must
take to comply with API Standard 653 and 49 C.F.R. § 195.432. Routine monthly inspections
must identify the following issues on breakout tanks:
 Leaks on shell, flanges and mixers
 Shell distortions, settlement or heaving, active corrosion, oil or water in tank or on roof
 Foundation condition, paint coatings, floating roof, insulation and appurtenances
During its annual inspection, Enbridge identified issues with three breakout tanks, as
described in the table below, that should have been addressed in the company’s monthly
inspections but were not. Enbridge informed PHMSA that further training maybe needed to
correct this matter.
7



Superior Unit
Inspection
Item
Tank 10 July 2016 Tank 1 August 2016 Tank 12 July 2016
Annual Note: Peeling paint on pontoon
deck, corrosion on roof leg
sleeves, ground shunts not in
contact with shell, vac
breaker leak, bent stair
treads.
Ring wall cracks and
spalls, roof corrosion,
bent stairs on roof,
ground shunts not in
contact with shell,
corroded platform stair.
Water pooling at clean
out area on E & N sides,
cavity under roof drain
valve, shell paint peeling,
damaged stair grating.
Monthly
Required API
653:
Leaks
Shell
Distortions
Settlement
Corrosion Missing Missing Foundation Missing Coatings Missing
Insulation
Missing
Missing
Appurtenances Missing Missing Monthly
Required 09-
02-02
Procedure:
Missing
Above items
include roof
8. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) . . .
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in corrosion
control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency involves a pipeline
in an integrity management program under § 195.452, you must correct the
deficiency as required by § 195.452(h)
§195.401 General requirements.
(a) . . .
(b) An operator must make repairs on its pipeline system according to the
following requirements:
(1) Non Integrity management repairs. Whenever an operator discovers any
condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it
8



must correct the condition within a reasonable time. However, if the condition is
of such a nature that it presents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the
operator may not operate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the
unsafe condition.
Enbridge did not correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable time
as required by § 195.401(b). PHMSA’s records inspection identified that Enbridge did not
correct identified cathodic protection deficiencies to bring structure potentials up to the level
of "target potentials" as defined by the operator within a reasonable time. According to
Enbridge’s procedures Book 3: Performing CP Surveys - Annual – Sub # 08-03-20,
discovered deficiencies should be corrected prior to the next scheduled inspection.
Deficiencies were found at the following five locations that were not corrected prior to the
next inspection:
Unit MilePost Description Bay City 678.6230 Target On
Voltage
-1.206 2015 On
Reading
-.769 2016 On
Reading
-1.18
C679 Howell
Facilities CP Valve
6-SDV-1
-1.084
Bay City 1628.635 Line 5 Mainline CP -1.443 -1.406 -1.427
Bay City 1734.301 Line 5 Mainline CP -1.047 -.968 -.958
Escanaba 1571.481 LINE 5 - Mainline
-1.533 -.924 CP – (Valve
1571.48-5-V)
Griffith 341.69 -1.332 -1.236 -1.277
9. §195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what
coating material may I use?
(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to
the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric
corrosion.
(c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces,
you need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you
demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate to the environment
of the pipeline that corrosion will-
(1) Only be a light surface oxide; or
(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled
inspection.
9



Enbridge failed to provide suitable coating on its pipeline to protect against atmospheric
corrosion, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.581. Enbridge did not maintain a suitable coating at
the following 8 exposed pipe locations identified during PHMSA’s field inspection as shown
in the field inspection photographs in Exhibit E of the Pipeline Safety Violation Report.
Unit Pipeline Location Description 1
MN 1 MP1082
MN 3 MP820
MN 2 MP886.953
MN 3 MP973.7
MN 2 MP1013
Superior 1 MP 1090.22
Escanaba 5 MP 1456.48
Griffith 62 MP 66.98
10. §195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is
located:
Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding
39 months.
Offshore At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15
months.
(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air
interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports,
in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.
(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must provide
protection against the corrosion as required by §195.581.
§195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what
coating material may I use?
(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to
the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air interfaces,
you need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any pipeline for which you
10



demonstrate by test, investigation, or experience appropriate to the environment
of the pipeline that corrosion will-
(1) Only be a light surface oxide; or
(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next scheduled
inspection.
inspection photographs in Exhibit F of the Pipeline Safety Violation Report.
Unit
Pipeline Location Description 1
MN
4
MP1065.7
MN
1
MP915.141
MN
2
MP915.141
MN
3
MP913
MN
2, 1,3
MP 914
Fort Atkinson
6
MP 82
Fort Atkinson
6
MP 98
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,090,022
for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be
preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $122,100 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
1
$25,200
2
$18,900
$20,300
00 ur
$37,000
$20,700
11



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enbridge
Energy, LP. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a
part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
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. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be 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).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request
a hearing under 49 CFR § 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 a Final Order. If you are responding to this
Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2020-5009 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
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
CC: Mr. Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance, 119 N. 25th Street East,
Superior, WI 54880 (david.stafford@enbridge.com)
12



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge) a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Enbridge
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to maintaining a means for clearly
indicating the position of the valves, Enbridge must provide a means of clearly
indicating the positon of the nine valves and document this effort.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to providing for a post-accident
review of employee activities, Enbridge must conduct and document a post-accident
review of employee activities on the pipeline accident that occurred on February 29,
2016. on the Lakehead system, that were reported to PHMSA on DOT Form 7000-1, to
determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking
corrective action where deficiencies are found. This review and documentation must
include all of the elements in §195.402(e).
In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to clearing rights-of-way (ROW) to
allow for inspection, Enbridge must clear the three ROW areas to allow aerial patrol
and document this effort, or must patrol the ROW by another method and document the
effort.
In regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to inspection of breakout tanks,
Enbridge must train its employees on procedures for properly conducting monthly
breakout tank inspections. Documentation of this training must also be made.
In regard to Item 9 of the Notice pertaining to suitable atmospheric coating on the
pipeline, Enbridge must remediate the coating at the 8 locations identified and
document the action taken.
In regard to Item 10 of the Notice pertaining to maintaining coating at soil-to-air
interfaces, Enbridge must remediate the coating at the 7 locations identified and
document the action taken.
Enbridge must complete the compliance items 1 thought 6 above within 180 days of
receiving the Final Order and provide documentation to Greg Ochs, Director, Central
Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
It is requested (not mandated) that Enbridge maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to Greg Ochs, Director, Central Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1)
13



total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and
analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to
pipeline infrastructure.
14

320205009_Closure Letter_12222021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: michael.koby@enbridge.com and
david.stafford@enbridge.com
December 22, 2021
Michael Koby
Vice President, US Operations
Enbridge Energy, LP
5400 Westheimer Court
Houston, Texas 77056
CPF 3-2020-5009-NOPV
Dear Mr. Koby:
On August 9, 2021 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Enbridge Energy, LP a Final Order that made findings of violations, assessed a
reduced civil penalty of $98,900, and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge Energy, LP in
order to comply with the pipeline safety regulationsin the above-referenced case. On August
30, 2021, Enbridge Energy, LP filed its Petition for Reconsideration. On December 21, 2021,
PHMSA issued its Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration granting Respondent’s
Petition, in part, by withdrawing the disputed statement from the Final Order. The Final Order
included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment requirement.
Based on our review of the documentation you provided, and your Payment of Penalty on
August 31, 2021, it has been determined that Enbridge Energy, LP has complied with the terms
of the Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Mr. Dave Stafford, Manager, US Pipeline Compliance (david.stafford@enbridge.com)

320205009_Final Order_08092021_(17-158844S)_text.pdf

August 9, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: michael.koby@enbridge.com
Michael Koby
Vice President, U.S. Operations
Enbridge Energy, LP
5400 Westheimer Court
Houston, Texas 77056
Re: CPF No. 3-2020-5009
Dear Mr. Koby:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of
the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of
$98,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Enbridge Energy, LP to comply with the
pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When
the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined
by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final
Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. David Stafford, Manager, U.S. Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge Energy, LP,
david.stafford@enbridge.com
CONFIMRATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Enbridge Energy, LP, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CPF No. 3-2020-5009
FINAL ORDER
From January 16, 2018 through July 20, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enbridge
Energy, LP (Enbridge or Respondent) for the Lakehead and Flanagan systems in North Dakota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, and New York. Enbridge Energy, LP
is a subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc., and operates over 4,000 miles of pipeline across those states.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 19, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Enbridge had committed ten violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $122,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enbridge responded to the Notice
by letter dated January 19, 2021 (Response). Enbridge contested several of the allegations,
offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil
penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to
one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e), which states:
§ 195.116 Valves.
Each valve installed in a pipeline system must comply with the



CPF No. 3-2020-5009
Page 2
following:
(a) . . .
(e) Each valve other than a check valve must be equipped with a means
for clearly indicating the position of the valve (open, closed, etc.).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.116(e) by failing to maintain a
means for clearly indicating the position of the valves. Specifically, the Notice alleged that nine
of Enbridge’s valves noted below were identified by PHMSA’s field inspections as not having
clear means of indicating the valve position. The identified protectors were not transparent due
to smoke coloring or grease preventing clear indication of the valve stem position.
Unit Valve Comments
Bay City 532.74-6V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 536.42-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 576.92-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 607.62 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 638.45-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 576.82-6-V Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 6-UD-V-21 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City SK-6-SV-3 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
Bay City 6-TBV-2 Valve stem cover smoke colored, can’t see valve stem.
In its Response, Enbridge contested the allegation. First, Enbridge stated that the valve at 6-UD-
V-21 is “located indoors and appears to have been inadvertently included.” Second, with regard
to the remaining valves, Enbridge stated that “the position of the valve stems for each referenced
valve can be seen, clearly indicating whether it is in the open or closed position” and could be
“determined by observing the visible light passing through the cover on either side of the
threaded valve stems.” Third, Enbridge argued the “valve protectors remain transparent” and
provided photographs in support. Fourth, Enbridge stated that the standard cited above is a
“design standard, not an operating and maintenance standard, which calls for the installation of
transparent valve stem protectors” while design standards do not. Finally, Enbridge stated that it
is “axiomatic” that discoloration will occur, that it is “acceptable,” and that it “does not prevent
operator personnel from seeing the valve stem and determining the position of each valve stem.”
After considering the additional information and explanations provided by Enbridge, I agree that
the valve at 6-UD-V-21 did not exhibit smoky discoloration and was equipped with a means for
clearly indicating the position of the valve. Therefore, this alleged instance of violation should
be withdrawn. However, with regard to the remaining valves, I disagree with Respondent. The
evidence shows the remaining eight valves did have discoloration that inhibited the ability to
determine the valve position. Respondent’s contention that § 195.116(e) did not require valve
stem protectors to remain clear after installation is not a position I find supported by the text of
the regulation, which states that each valve installed in a pipeline system “must be equipped with
a means for clearly indicating the position of the valve.” Accordingly, even a properly installed
valve would cease to be in compliance if it no longer has means for clearly indicating the valve



CPF No. 3-2020-5009
Page 3
position.1 While it may be “axiomatic” that some discoloration will occur, excess discoloration
that prevents a clear indication of valve position does not comply with the regulation. In the
Director’s written evaluation of the response material pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director
noted that the photos provided by Enbridge were taken “right next to the valve stem” and that in
practice the stem may be located on an elevated platform away from Enbridge personnel. As a
result, the photographs fail to show that there is a means for clearly indicating the position of the
valve. The Director also noted that PHMSA representatives observed Enbridge personnel
removing valve stem covers during the day to observe the valve position because the smoky
discoloration inhibited their view.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that

- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 75846