{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420105008","title":"ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (OZARK) L.L.C. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-03-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.432(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420105008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420105008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420105008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420105008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (OZARK) L.L.C.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.432(b). The case was opened on 2010-03-08 and is reported as closed as of 2016-10-19. Proposed civil penalty: $28,800. Assessed civil penalty: $28,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420105008_Closure Letter_ 10192016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_Closure%20Letter_%2010192016_text.pdf\n\n420105008_Closure Letter_10192016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_Closure%20Letter_10192016.pdf\n\n420105008_FinalOrder_08172010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_FinalOrder_08172010.pdf\n\n420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf\n\n420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03082010.pdf\n\n420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03082010_text.pdf\n\n420105008_Response to NOPV PCP PCO_04122010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420105008/420105008_Response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04122010.pdf\n\n420105008_NOPV PCP PCO_03082010_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 8, 2010\nMr. Terry McGill\nPresident\nEnbridge Pipelines, L.L.C.\n1100 Louisiana Street. Suite 3300\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2010-5008\nDear Mr. McGill:\nOn September 21, 2009 through September 24, 2009, and December 7 through December 11,\n2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\ninspected Enbridge Pipelines, L.L.C.’s (Enbridge) Cushing Terminal facility in Cushing, OK,\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API\n\n\n\nStandard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom,\nthe bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations\nand maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3).\n(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs (b)\nand (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last recorded date\nof the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nThe interval for the in-service external visual inspection of a breakout tank that is subject to the\nrequirements of 195.432(b) and API Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and\nReconstruction (API 653) is calculated in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of API 653. This\ninspection is called the “External Inspection” and must be conducted at least every 5 years.\nThe Enbridge Cushing Terminal was acquired by Enbridge in 2004. Enbridge received historical\nrecords from the previous owner of the facility. At the time of the inspection, all of the 89 tanks\nwere in crude oil service, and had been placed in service from 1921 to 2007. Enbridge provided\nan excel spreadsheet to the inspectors titled “Tankage Summary – Cushing Terminal –\nSeptember 23, 2009,” at the time of inspection. Review of the table indicated that 20 tanks did\nnot receive their External Inspection within the maximum 5 year inspection interval, as follows:\nNominal\nAPI 653\nAPI 653\nTank\nCapacity Date Roof Shell Bottom\nExternal\nExternal External\n(bbl.) Built Type Construction Lining Previous Current Interval\n3001 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 09/03/99 10/05/05 >5\n3002 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 04/24/01 08/31/06 >5\n3003 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 04/24/01 09/01/06 >5\n3004 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 09/20/00 10/05/05 >5\n3006 57000 1921 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 04/25/01 09/01/06 >5\n3013 262000 1978 Internal Welded Fiberglass 04/26/01 09/11/06 >5\n3330 78000 1946 External Welded Fiberglass 02/20/01 09/12/06 >5\n3331 78000 1946 External Welded Epoxy 06/18/01 08/30/06 >5\n1395 66000 1953 Internal Welded Gunite 03/14/03 12/16/08 >5\n1015 84000 1926 External Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/22/08 >5\n1024 81000 1922 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/15/08 >5\n1025 85000 1925 External Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/18/08 >5\n1027 80000 1925 External Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/03 12/23/08 >5\n1034 84000 1927 External Riveted Concrete 03/14/00 12/23/08 >5\n1035 84000 1927 Internal Riveted Fiberglass 03/14/00 12/08/05 >5\n1153 128000 1947 External Welded Fiberglass 08/06/03 12/17/08 >5\n1155 128000 1947 External Welded Fiberglass 03/13/00 08/05/05 >5\n1156 128000 1947 External Welded Fiberglass 08/06/03 12/18/08 >5\n1181 128000 1954 External Welded Fiberglass 04/26/01 08/28/06 >5\n1182 128000 1954 External Welded Fiberglass 03/28/02 01/07/08 >5\n2\n\n\n\nEnbridge failed to meet the external inspection intervals for 20 tanks at the Enbridge Terminal.\nSubsequently, Enbridge has modified its Breakout Inspection procedures to ensure the correct\nexternal inspection interval is determined such that it does not exceed the maximum 5 years,\ndefined in API 653, and that the 5 year interval is clearly defined as 5 periods of 365 days instead\nof 5 calendar years, as previously applied by Enbridge.\n2. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API\nStandard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom,\nthe bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations\nand maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3).\n(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs (b)\nand (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last recorded date\nof the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nEnbridge acquired the Cushing Terminal facilities in 2004. Internal inspection reports and repair\ndata were provided to Enbridge from the previous owner that indicated API Standard 653 (API\n653) internal inspections had been performed on all of the existing tanks at various dates prior to\nthe acquisition by Enbridge, except those that were newly constructed. Repair records were\navailable with varying levels of detail about the repairs.\nThe summary of the tank data and the API 653 inspection dates were provided to the inspectors\nin the same Excel spreadsheet identified in item 1 of this letter. The inspection intervals\nappeared to be set at the 20 year maximum interval allowed by API 653 for all tanks at the\nfacility, and corrosion rates were not included in the data. During the September field\ninspection, a conference call was held with additional integrity personnel from Enbridge. During\nthis discussion, Enbridge explained their calculation process to the inspectors, and demonstrated\na sample tank bottom corrosion calculation to determine the internal inspection interval.\nPrior to the second week of field inspection scheduled for December 8, 2009, Enbridge was\nrequested to provide additional information pertaining to the basis for the internal inspection\nintervals and identify the corrosion rates if the inspection intervals were calculated in accordance\nwith API 653 Section 4.4.7.\nDuring the field inspection carried out the week of December 7, 2009, the PHMSA inspector\nreviewed numerous calculations, API 653 inspection reports, and repairs that were performed.\nBased upon this document review, a subsequent request was made to Enbridge to establish the\ninformation upon which they based the calculation of the internal inspection intervals. During\nthe closing meeting, the PHMSA inspector indicated that it appeared that there were as many as\n35 tanks that appeared to be deficient in the internal inspection interval calculation, and asked\n3\n\n\n\nthat Enbridge provide the necessary information to determine compliance with the requirements\nof API 653 for internal inspection interval calculations at the end of January 2010.\nOn February 3, 2010, Enbridge representatives met with PHMSA representatives at the\nSouthwest Region office. During this meeting, Enbridge provided the specific information\nrequested by PHMSA, where it was available, and provided a new Excel spreadsheet identifying\nthe following tanks which did not have internal inspection intervals established in a manner that\nwas consistent with the requirements of API 653.\nAPI 653 Section 6.4.2 describes the method for establishing the inspection intervals for internal\ninspections. Section 6.4.2 requires the calculation of the internal inspection intervals in\naccordance with Section 4.4.7 of the standard, with a maximum internal inspection interval of 20\nyears. If, however, the corrosion rates are unknown, the maximum inspection interval is not to\nexceed 10 years, unless similar service experience is available to estimate the bottom plate\nthickness at the next inspection.\nSpecifically, Tanks 2225, 2226, 2227, and 2228 did not have an internal inspection performed\nwithin 10 years of construction to establish corrosion rates, and there was no process in place to\napply similar service to these tanks. Tanks 2225 and 2226 were constructed in 1994 and Tanks\n2227 and 2228 were constructed in 1999, and should have had an internal inspection completed\nno later than 2004 and 2009, respectively.\nEnbridge failed to demonstrate that they had established a corrosion rate for the tank bottoms of\nTanks and exceeded the 10 year maximum internal inspection interval for unknown corrosion\nrates on Tanks 2225, 2226, 2227, and 2228. Another option to determine the corrosion rate is to\nuse tanks in similar service, as allowed by API Standard 653. However, Enbridge did not have\nsimilar service experience, or procedures to apply similar service experience available to make\nthis inspection interval determination.\nThere were another 33 tanks identified by the PHMSA inspector that required additional\ninformation about the determination of the internal inspection interval. Based upon the\ninformation provided to PHMSA by Enbridge during the February 3, 2010 meeting, it was\ndetermined that the following tanks did not have adequate information to determine a bottom\nplate corrosion rate, and inadequate information to establish that the assumption of a corrosion\nrate of zero for either the top or bottom of the bottom plate. The previous owner’s records were\nnot adequate to support the assumption of a corrosion rate of zero. The maximum internal\ninspection interval for these tanks defaulted to 10 years, unless similar service was available to\nestimate the corrosion rates. Enbridge had no similar service procedures as an alternative to\ndetermine the corrosion rates, as allowed by API 653, and further stated that there were no tanks\nthat met similar service criteria for the 33 tanks in question. The reassessment of the internal\ninspection intervals by Enbridge identified the following 19 tanks as having exceeded the API\n653 maximum 10 year interval when corrosion rates were unknown and similar service was not\navailable.\n4\n\n\n\nAPI 653\n10 Year\nAPI 653\nTank Date Shell\nInternal\nMaximum\nInternal\nNo. Built Construction Current Interval Scheduled\n3001 1921 Riveted 11/29/94 11/29/04 *11/29/2014\n3004 1921 Riveted 08/25/95 08/25/05 *08/25/2015\n3006 1921 Riveted 10/13/98 10/13/08 *10/13/2018\n3013 1978 Welded 05/25/92 05/25/02 2012\n2203 1920 Riveted 10/16/98 10/16/08 2018\n2211 1920 Riveted 05/08/92 05/08/02 2012\n2223 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2009\n2224 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2011\n3360 1946 Welded 07/28/94 07/28/04 2014\n1395 1953 Welded 02/11/97 02/11/07 2026\n1012 1922 Riveted 07/15/91 07/15/01 2011\n1016 1927 Riveted 06/01/97 06/01/07 2017\n1024 1922 Riveted 07/08/93 07/08/03 2013\n1034 1927 Riveted 10/01/92 10/01/02 2012\n1035 1927 Riveted 08/23/95 08/23/95 2015\n1153 1947 Welded 10/28/93 10/28/03 2013\n1155 1947 Welded 09/29/95 09/29/05 2015\n1156 1947 Welded 07/12/91 07/12/01 2011\n1181 1954 Welded 05/31/96 05/31/06 2016\n*These tanks are scheduled for demolition prior to their next scheduled\ninternal inspection\nIn total, Enbridge failed to inspect the 23 tanks, 4 of which were newly constructed and had no\nprevious inspections to establish a corrosion rate, and 19 of which were existing but did not have\nadequate information to determine an appropriate corrosion rate and subsequently exceeded the\nmaximum 10 year internal inspection interval allowed by API 653.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $28,800 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $28,800\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 above, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enbridge.\n5\n\n\n\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2010-5008 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: Shaun Kavajecz, Manager, Pipeline Safety Compliance, Enbridge Pipelines, L. L. C.\n6\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enbridge Pipelines, L.L.C. (Enbridge) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance\nof Enbridge with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to exceeding the maximum API\nStandard 653 internal inspection interval for 23 breakout tanks identified in the following\ntable at Cushing Tank Farm. Enbridge shall prepare a schedule for completion of the out\nof service internal inspections and submit it to PHMSA no later than 30 days from this\nFinal Order. Upon approval of the proposed inspection schedule by PHMSA, Enbridge\nshall carry out the inspections and any necessary repairs.\nAPI 653\n10 Year\nAPI 653\nTank Date Shell\nInternal\nMaximum\nInternal\nNo. Built Construction Current Interval Scheduled\n3001 1921 Riveted 11/29/94 11/29/04 *11/29/2014\n3004 1921 Riveted 08/25/95 08/25/05 *08/25/2015\n3006 1921 Riveted 10/13/98 10/13/08 *10/13/2018\n3013 1978 Welded 05/25/92 05/25/02 2012\n2203 1920 Riveted 10/16/98 10/16/08 2018\n2211 1920 Riveted 05/08/92 05/08/02 2012\n2223 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2009\n2224 1975 Welded 11/20/91 11/20/01 2011\n2225 1994 Welded New 2004 2014\n2226 1994 Welded New 2004 2014\n2227 1999 Welded New 2009 2019\n2228 1999 Welded New 2009 2019\n3360 1946 Welded 07/28/94 07/28/04 2014\n1395 1953 Welded 02/11/97 02/11/07 2026\n1012 1922 Riveted 07/15/91 07/15/01 2011\n1016 1927 Riveted 06/01/97 06/01/07 2017\n1024 1922 Riveted 07/08/93 07/08/03 2013\n1034 1927 Riveted 10/01/92 10/01/02 2012\n1035 1927 Riveted 08/23/95 08/23/95 2015\n1153 1947 Welded 10/28/93 10/28/03 2013\n1155 1947 Welded 09/29/95 09/29/05 2015\n1156 1947 Welded 07/12/91 07/12/01 2011\n1181 1954 Welded 05/31/96 05/31/06 2016\n*These tanks are scheduled for demolition prior to their next scheduled\ninternal inspection\n7\n\n\n\n2. Enbridge shall provide quarterly updates on the progress of the tank inspections to the\nPHMSA Southwest Region Office until such time that the tank inspections identified in\nthe approved schedule developed in Item 1 of this Final Order have been completed. The\nquarterly updates shall identify the schedule, inspection results and recommended repairs\nas well as a repair schedule and results for the tanks listed in Item 1 of this Final Order.\n3. Enbridge shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director,\nSouthwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions\nand other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n8\n\n420105008_Closure Letter_10192016.pdf\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n. 8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston, TX 77074\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 19, 2016\nMr. Brad Shamla\nVice President, U.S. Operations\nEnbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C.\n1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-5008\nDear Mr. Shamla:\nOn August 17, 2010, a Final Order was issued in the above-referenced case. The Final Order\nmade a finding of violation and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge Storage (Cushing)\nL.L.C. (Enbridge).\nBased on a PHMSA review it has been determined that Enbridge has completed the requirements\nof the Final Order. This letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is\nnow closed. Thank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nMedal\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420105008_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf\n\nAUG 17 2010\nMr. Terry McGill\nPresident\nEnbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C.\n1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-5008\nDear Mr. McGill:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $28,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nEnbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to\nacknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount by wire transfer, dated April 12,\n2010. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order\nby certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Shaun Kavajecz, Manager, Pipeline Safety Compliance, Enbridge Energy, 119 North\n25th Street East, Superior, WI 54880\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 2643]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nEnbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C., ) CPF No. 4-2010-5008\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 21-24 and December 7-11, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nEnbridge Pipelines (Ozark), L.L.C. (Enbridge or Respondent), at its Cushing Terminal facility in\nCushing, Oklahoma. Enbridge, a subsidiary of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., operates\napproximately 100 crude-oil breakout tanks and approximately 485 miles of crude-oil pipelines\nin Oklahoma, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 8, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Enbridge had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $28,800. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.\nEnbridge responded to the Notice by letters dated April 12 and April 30, 2010 (collectively,\nResponse). The company did not contest the allegations of violation, paid the proposed civil\npenalty of $28,800, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227, and provided information concerning the\ncorrective actions it planned to take. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Enbridge did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432, which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions\nprevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3) . . . .\n(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in\nparagraphs (b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the\noperator’s last recorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 by failing to conduct external\nvisual inspections of 20 in-service aboveground breakout tanks with the frequency that API\nStandard 653 requires. API Standard 653 requires operators to inspect such tanks at least every\nfive years. The Notice alleged that Enbridge inspected 20 tanks at intervals greater than five\nyears. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation and explained that it had revised its\nprocedures to require a more definitive five-year or “five periods of 365 days” inspection cycle.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.432 by failing to conduct aboveground tank inspections according to the\nrequirements of API Standard 653.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432, as quoted above, by\nfailing to conduct internal inspections of 23 breakout tanks with the frequency that API Standard\n653 requires.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432 requires that internal inspections of breakout tanks be carried out according\nto section 4 of API Standard 653, which describes the method by which internal inspection\nintervals are to be calculated and establishes maximum inspection intervals. The standard\nprovides for a 10-year maximum inspection interval for tanks for which corrosion rates are\nunknown, unless the operator uses specific procedures to estimate corrosion. The Notice alleged\nthat Respondent did not know, and could not estimate, the corrosion rates of four newly\nconstructed tanks, and that the company violated § 195.432 by exceeding the consequent 10-year\nmaximum inspection interval. The Notice alleged further that Respondent did have adequate\ninformation to determine the appropriate corrosion rate for 19 other existing tanks, and that\nRespondent violated § 195.432 by exceeding the consequent 10-year maximum inspection\ninterval.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation and explained that the company lacked\nsufficient records to demonstrate compliance due, in part, to its recent acquisition of the facility\nin 2004 and the previous owner’s records. In its Response, Enbridge proposed a schedule for\ncorrective actions it planned to take. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 by failing to inspect 23 tanks with the\nfrequency required by API 653.\n\n\n\n3\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for a violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. Respondent must prepare a schedule for inspecting the 23 tanks that were not\nproperly inspected. Upon the Director’s written approval of the schedule,\nRespondent must carry out the inspections and any necessary repairs as set forth in\nthe schedule.\n2. Respondent must provide quarterly updates to the Director on the progress of the tank\ninspections referenced above until the inspections are completed. The updates must\nidentify the inspection schedule, inspection results, recommended repairs, a repair\nschedule, and the results of repairs for these tanks. The first quarterly report is due 30\ndays from Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order, and then every three months\nthereafter.\n3. Respondent must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. Costs shall\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies, and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\n\n\n\n4\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the\nRespondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420105008_Closure Letter_ 10192016_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 19, 2016\nMr. Brad Shamla\nVice President, U.S. Operations\nEnbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C.\n1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-5008\nDear Mr. Shamla:\nOn August 17, 2010, a Final Order was issued in the above-referenced case. The Final Order\nmade a finding of violation and specified actions to be taken by Enbridge Storage (Cushing)\nL.L.C. (Enbridge).\nBased on a PHMSA review it has been determined that Enbridge has completed the requirements\nof the Final Order. This letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is\nnow closed. Thank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":29558}