ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (OZARK) L.L.C. — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF420105008_Response to NOPV PCP PCO_04122010.pdf#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED March 8, 2010 Mr. Terry McGill President Enbridge Pipelines, L.L.C. 1100 Louisiana Street. Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 CPF 4-2010-5008 Dear Mr. McGill: On September 21, 2009 through September 24, 2009, and December 7 through December 11, 2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) inspected Enbridge Pipelines, L.L.C.’s (Enbridge) Cushing Terminal facility in Cushing, OK, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code. As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are: 1. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 2Standard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). (d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier. The interval for the in-service external visual inspection of a breakout tank that is subject to the requirements of 195.432(b) and API Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction (API 653) is calculated in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of API 653. This inspection is called the “External Inspection” and must be conducted at least every 5 years. The Enbridge Cushing Terminal was acquired by Enbridge in 2004. Enbridge received historical records from the previous owner of the facility. At the time of the inspection, all of the 89 tanks were in crude oil service, and had been placed in service from 1921 to 2007. Enbridge provided an excel spreadsheet to the inspectors titled “Tankage Summary – Cushing Terminal – September 23, 2009,” at the time of inspection. Review of the table indicated that 20 tanks did not receive their External Inspection within the maximum 5 year inspection interval, as follows: Nominal API 653 API 653 Tank Capacity Date Roof Shell Bottom External External External (bbl.) Built Type Construction Lining Previous Current Interval 3001 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 09/03/99 10/05/05 >5 3002 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 04/24/01 08/31/06 >5 3003 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 04/24/01 09/01/06 >5 3004 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 09/20/00 10/05/05 >5 3006 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 04/25/01 09/01/06 >5 3013 262000 1978 Internal Welded Fiberglass 04/26/01 09/11/06 >5 3330 78000 1946 External Welded Fiberglass 02/20/01 09/12/06 >5 3331 78000 1946 External Welded Epoxy 06/18/01 08/30/06 >5 1395 66000 1953 Internal Welded Gunite 03/14/03 12/16/08 >5 1015 84000 1926 External Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/22/08 >5 1024 81000 1922 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/15/08 >5 1025 85000 1925 External Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/18/08 >5 1027 80000 1925 External Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/23/08 >5 1034 84000 1927 External Riveted Concrete 03/14/00 12/23/08 >5 1035 84000 1927 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/00 12/08/05 >5 1153 128000 1947 External Welded Fiberglass 08/06/03 12/17/08 >5 1155 128000 1947 External Welded Fiberglass 03/13/00 08/05/05 >5 1156 128000 1947 External Welded Fiberglass 08/06/03 12/18/08 >5 1181 128000 1954 External Welded Fiberglass 04/26/01 08/28/06 >5 1182 128000 1954 External Welded Fiberglass 03/28/02 01/07/08 >5 2#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 3Enbridge failed to meet the external inspection intervals for 20 tanks at the Enbridge Terminal. Subsequently, Enbridge has modified its Breakout Inspection procedures to ensure the correct external inspection interval is determined such that it does not exceed the maximum 5 years, defined in API 653, and that the 5 year interval is clearly defined as 5 periods of 365 days instead of 5 calendar years, as previously applied by Enbridge. 2. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). (d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier. Enbridge acquired the Cushing Terminal facilities in 2004. Internal inspection reports and repair data were provided to Enbridge from the previous owner that indicated API Standard 653 (API 653) internal inspections had been performed on all of the existing tanks at various dates prior to the acquisition by Enbridge, except those that were newly constructed. Repair records were available with varying levels of detail about the repairs. The summary of the tank data and the API 653 inspection dates were provided to the inspectors in the same Excel spreadsheet identified in item 1 of this letter. The inspection intervals appeared to be set at the 20 year maximum interval allowed by API 653 for all tanks at the facility, and corrosion rates were not included in the data. During the September field inspection, a conference call was held with additional integrity personnel from Enbridge. During this discussion, Enbridge explained their calculation process to the inspectors, and demonstrated a sample tank bottom corrosion calculation to determine the internal inspection interval. Prior to the second week of field inspection scheduled for December 8, 2009, Enbridge was requested to provide additional information pertaining to the basis for the internal inspection intervals and identify the corrosion rates if the inspection intervals were calculated in accordance with API 653 Section 4.4.7. During the field inspection carried out the week of December 7, 2009, the PHMSA inspector reviewed numerous calculations, API 653 inspection reports, and repairs that were performed. Based upon this document review, a subsequent request was made to Enbridge to establish the information upon which they based the calculation of the internal inspection intervals. During the closing meeting, the PHMSA inspector indicated that it appeared that there were as many as 35 tanks that appeared to be deficient in the internal inspection interval calculation, and asked 3#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 4that Enbridge provide the necessary information to determine compliance with the requirements of API 653 for internal inspection interval calculations at the end of January 2010. On February 3, 2010, Enbridge representatives met with PHMSA representatives at the Southwest Region office. During this meeting, Enbridge provided the specific information requested by PHMSA, where it was available, and provided a new Excel spreadsheet identifying the following tanks which did not have internal inspection intervals established in a manner that was consistent with the requirements of API 653. API 653 Section 6.4.2 describes the method for establishing the inspection intervals for internal inspections. Section 6.4.2 requires the calculation of the internal inspection intervals in accordance with Section 4.4.7 of the standard, with a maximum internal inspection interval of 20 years. If, however, the corrosion rates are unknown, the maximum inspection interval is not to exceed 10 years, unless similar service experience is available to estimate the bottom plate thickness at the next inspection. Specifically, Tanks 2225, 2226, 2227, and 2228 did not have an internal inspection performed within 10 years of construction to establish corrosion rates, and there was no process in place to apply similar service to these tanks. Tanks 2225 and 2226 were constructed in 1994 and Tanks 2227 and 2228 were constructed in 1999, and should have had an internal inspection completed no later than 2004 and 2009, respectively. Enbridge failed to demonstrate that they had established a corrosion rate for the tank bottoms of Tanks and exceeded the 10 year maximum internal inspection interval for unknown corrosion rates on Tanks 2225, 2226, 2227, and 2228. Another option to determine the corrosion rate is to use tanks in similar service, as allowed by API Standard 653. However, Enbridge did not have similar service experience, or procedures to apply similar service experience available to make this inspection interval determination. There were another 33 tanks identified by the PHMSA inspector that required additional information about the determination of the internal inspection interval. Based upon the information provided to PHMSA by Enbridge during the February 3, 2010 meeting, it was determined that the following tanks did not have adequate information to determine a bottom plate corrosion rate, and inadequate information to establish that the assumption of a corrosion rate of zero for either the top or bottom of the bottom plate. The previous owner’s records were not adequate to support the assumption of a corrosion rate of zero. The maximum internal inspection interval for these tanks defaulted to 10 years, unless similar service was available to estimate the corrosion rates. Enbridge had no similar service procedures as an alternative to determine the corrosion rates, as allowed by API 653, and further stated that there were no tanks that met similar service criteria for the 33 tanks in question. The reassessment of the internal inspection intervals by Enbridge identified the following 19 tanks as having exceeded the API 653 maximum 10 year interval when corrosion rates were unknown and similar service was not available. 4#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 5API 653 10 Year API 653 Tank Date Shell Internal Maximum Internal No. Built Construction Current Interval Scheduled 3001 1921 Riveted 11/29/94 11/29/04 *11/29/2014 3004 1921 Riveted 08/25/95 08/25/05 *08/25/2015 3006 1921 Riveted 10/13/98 10/13/08 *10/13/2018 3013 1978 Welded 05/25/92 05/25/02 2012 2203 1920 Riveted 10/16/98 10/16/08 2018 2211 1920 Riveted 05/08/92 05/08/02 2012 2223 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2009 2224 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2011 3360 1946 Welded 07/28/94 07/28/04 2014 1395 1953 Welded 02/11/97 02/11/07 2026 1012 1922 Riveted 07/15/91 07/15/01 2011 1016 1927 Riveted 06/01/97 06/01/07 2017 1024 1922 Riveted 07/08/93 07/08/03 2013 1034 1927 Riveted 10/01/92 10/01/02 2012 1035 1927 Riveted 08/23/95 08/23/95 2015 1153 1947 Welded 10/28/93 10/28/03 2013 1155 1947 Welded 09/29/95 09/29/05 2015 1156 1947 Welded 07/12/91 07/12/01 2011 1181 1954 Welded 05/31/96 05/31/06 2016 *These tanks are scheduled for demolition prior to their next scheduled internal inspection In total, Enbridge failed to inspect the 23 tanks, 4 of which were newly constructed and had no previous inspections to establish a corrosion rate, and 19 of which were existing but did not have adequate information to determine an appropriate corrosion rate and subsequently exceeded the maximum 10 year internal inspection interval allowed by API 653. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has 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 $28,800 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $28,800 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to item 2 above, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enbridge. 5#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 6Please 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 Compliance 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). 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. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2010-5008 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, R. M. Seeley Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings cc: Shaun Kavajecz, Manager, Pipeline Safety Compliance, Enbridge Pipelines, L. L. C. 6#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 7PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enbridge Pipelines, L.L.C. (Enbridge) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Enbridge with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to exceeding the maximum API Standard 653 internal inspection interval for 23 breakout tanks identified in the following table at Cushing Tank Farm. Enbridge shall prepare a schedule for completion of the out of service internal inspections and submit it to PHMSA no later than 30 days from this Final Order. Upon approval of the proposed inspection schedule by PHMSA, Enbridge shall carry out the inspections and any necessary repairs. API 653 10 Year API 653 Tank Date Shell Internal Maximum Internal No. Built Construction Current Interval Scheduled 3001 1921 Riveted 11/29/94 11/29/04 *11/29/2014 3004 1921 Riveted 08/25/95 08/25/05 *08/25/2015 3006 1921 Riveted 10/13/98 10/13/08 *10/13/2018 3013 1978 Welded 05/25/92 05/25/02 2012 2203 1920 Riveted 10/16/98 10/16/08 2018 2211 1920 Riveted 05/08/92 05/08/02 2012 2223 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2009 2224 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2011 2225 1994 Welded New 2004 2014 2226 1994 Welded New 2004 2014 2227 1999 Welded New 2009 2019 2228 1999 Welded New 2009 2019 3360 1946 Welded 07/28/94 07/28/04 2014 1395 1953 Welded 02/11/97 02/11/07 2026 1012 1922 Riveted 07/15/91 07/15/01 2011 1016 1927 Riveted 06/01/97 06/01/07 2017 1024 1922 Riveted 07/08/93 07/08/03 2013 1034 1927 Riveted 10/01/92 10/01/02 2012 1035 1927 Riveted 08/23/95 08/23/95 2015 1153 1947 Welded 10/28/93 10/28/03 2013 1155 1947 Welded 09/29/95 09/29/05 2015 1156 1947 Welded 07/12/91 07/12/01 2011 1181 1954 Welded 05/31/96 05/31/06 2016 *These tanks are scheduled for demolition prior to their next scheduled internal inspection 7#

420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf, page 82. Enbridge shall provide quarterly updates on the progress of the tank inspections to the PHMSA Southwest Region Office until such time that the tank inspections identified in the approved schedule developed in Item 1 of this Final Order have been completed. The quarterly updates shall identify the schedule, inspection results and recommended repairs as well as a repair schedule and results for the tanks listed in Item 1 of this Final Order. 3. Enbridge shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) 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. 8#

420105008_Closure Letter_10192016.pdf, page 1Official PDFof Transportation U.S. Department . 8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630 Houston, TX 77074 Pipeline and Administration Hazardous Materials Safety CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED October 19, 2016 Mr. Brad Shamla Vice President, U.S. Operations Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C. 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 4-2010-5008 Dear Mr. Shamla: On August 17, 2010, a Final Order was issued in the above-referenced case. The Final Order made a finding of violation and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C. (Enbridge). Based on a PHMSA review it has been determined that Enbridge has completed the requirements of the Final Order. This letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Medal R. M. Seeley Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAUG 17 2010 Mr. Terry McGill President Enbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C. 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 4-2010-5008 Dear Mr. McGill: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $28,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Enbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount by wire transfer, dated April 12, 2010. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA Mr. Shaun Kavajecz, Manager, Pipeline Safety Compliance, Enbridge Energy, 119 North 25th Street East, Superior, WI 54880 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 2643]#

420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Enbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C., ) CPF No. 4-2010-5008 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER On September 21-24 and December 7-11, 2009, 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 Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C. (Enbridge or Respondent), at its Cushing Terminal facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. Enbridge, a subsidiary of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., operates approximately 100 crude-oil breakout tanks and approximately 485 miles of crude-oil pipelines in Oklahoma, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated March 8, 2010, 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 violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $28,800. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations. Enbridge responded to the Notice by letters dated April 12 and April 30, 2010 (collectively, Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation, paid the proposed civil penalty of $28,800, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227, and provided information concerning the corrective actions it planned to take. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, Enbridge did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432, which states in relevant part:#

420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf, page 32 § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (a) . . . . (b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3) . . . . (d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator’s last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 by failing to conduct external visual inspections of 20 in-service aboveground breakout tanks with the frequency that API Standard 653 requires. API Standard 653 requires operators to inspect such tanks at least every five years. The Notice alleged that Enbridge inspected 20 tanks at intervals greater than five years. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation and explained that it had revised its procedures to require a more definitive five-year or “five periods of 365 days” inspection cycle. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 by failing to conduct aboveground tank inspections according to the requirements of API Standard 653. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432, as quoted above, by failing to conduct internal inspections of 23 breakout tanks with the frequency that API Standard 653 requires. 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 requires that internal inspections of breakout tanks be carried out according to section 4 of API Standard 653, which describes the method by which internal inspection intervals are to be calculated and establishes maximum inspection intervals. The standard provides for a 10-year maximum inspection interval for tanks for which corrosion rates are unknown, unless the operator uses specific procedures to estimate corrosion. The Notice alleged that Respondent did not know, and could not estimate, the corrosion rates of four newly constructed tanks, and that the company violated § 195.432 by exceeding the consequent 10-year maximum inspection interval. The Notice alleged further that Respondent did have adequate information to determine the appropriate corrosion rate for 19 other existing tanks, and that Respondent violated § 195.432 by exceeding the consequent 10-year maximum inspection interval. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation and explained that the company lacked sufficient records to demonstrate compliance due, in part, to its recent acquisition of the facility in 2004 and the previous owner’s records. In its Response, Enbridge proposed a schedule for corrective actions it planned to take. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 by failing to inspect 23 tanks with the frequency required by API 653.#

420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf, page 43 These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. Respondent must prepare a schedule for inspecting the 23 tanks that were not properly inspected. Upon the Director’s written approval of the schedule, Respondent must carry out the inspections and any necessary repairs as set forth in the schedule. 2. Respondent must provide quarterly updates to the Director on the progress of the tank inspections referenced above until the inspections are completed. The updates must identify the inspection schedule, inspection results, recommended repairs, a repair schedule, and the results of repairs for these tanks. The first quarterly report is due 30 days from Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order, and then every three months thereafter. 3. Respondent must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) 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. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA#

420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf, page 54 will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

420105008_Closure Letter_ 10192016_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED October 19, 2016 Mr. Brad Shamla Vice President, U.S. Operations Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C. 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 4-2010-5008 Dear Mr. Shamla: On August 17, 2010, a Final Order was issued in the above-referenced case. The Final Order made a finding of violation and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C. (Enbridge). Based on a PHMSA review it has been determined that Enbridge has completed the requirements of the Final Order. This letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, R. M. Seeley Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#