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

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420155016
- **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:** 2015-08-25
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.214.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155016.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155016.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155016
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420155016
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (OZARK) L.L.C.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.214. The case was opened on 2015-08-25 and is reported as closed as of 2019-10-24. Proposed civil penalty: $40,300. Assessed civil penalty: $33,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420155016_Closure Letter_10242019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Closure%20Letter_10242019.pdf

420155016_Closure Letter_10242019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Closure%20Letter_10242019_text.pdf

420155016_Decision on Petition For Reconsideration_02092018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Decision%20on%20Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_02092018.pdf

420155016_Decision on Petition For Reconsideration_02092018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Decision%20on%20Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_02092018_text.pdf

420155016_Final Order_03242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Final%20Order_03242017.pdf

420155016_Final Order_03242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Final%20Order_03242017_text.pdf

420155016_NOPV PCP PCO_08252015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08252015.pdf

420155016_NOPV PCP PCO_08252015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08252015_text.pdf

420155016_Operator Petition for Reconsideration Cover Letter_04192017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20Cover%20Letter_04192017.pdf

420155016_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_04192017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_04192017.pdf

420155016_Operator Response to Notice_ 10022015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155016/420155016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_%2010022015.pdf

420155016_Closure Letter_10242019_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
October 24, 2019
Brad Shamla
Vice President, U.S. Operations
Enbridge Storage (Cushing), LLC
1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2015-5016
Dear Mr. Shamla:
On multiple occasions between July 23, 2012 and April 20, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted onsite inspections of the Enbridge
Storage (Cushing) L.L.C (Enbridge) terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma, specifically procedures and
records related to the Enbridge BP/Amoco Pipe Modification Project. As a result of these
inspections, on August 25, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) was issued to Enbridge Storage (Cushing), LLC (Enbridge,
the Operator).
On March 24, 2017, a Final Order was issued with a Compliance Order requiring the Operator to
perform specified corrective actions, along with a civil penalty in the amount of $33,100. Enbridge
paid the penalty, performed the specified corrective actions, and on August 26, 2019, requested
closure of the case. Representatives of PHMSA performed inspections and found the corrective
actions to be acceptable.
This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420155016_Decision on Petition For Reconsideration_02092018_text.pdf

February 9, 2018
Mr. Mark A. Maki
President
Enbridge Storage (Cushing), LLC
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3300
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Dear Mr. Maki:
Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Enbridge Storage
(Cushing), LLC, in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision
grants the Petition, in part, but affirms the civil penalty and compliance terms of the March 24,
2017 Final Order. The civil penalty was paid in full, by wire transfer, dated April 11, 2017.
When the terms of the Compliance Order are completed, as determined by the Director,
Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the final
administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this Decision is made pursuant to 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: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. David Stafford, Senior Manager, U.S. Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge Energy
Partners, LP, 119 North 25th Street East, Superior, WI 54880
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 Storage (Cushing), LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5016
a subsidiary of Enbridge Energy Partners, LP, )
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
_________________________________________ )
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Between July 23, 2012, and April 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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
Storage (Cushing), LLC (Enbridge or Petitioner), in Cushing, Oklahoma, specifically the
procedures and records related to the Enbridge BP/Amoco Pipe Modification Project (BP/Amoco
Project). Enbridge operates a terminal facility in Cushing, Oklahoma, that is part of the Ozark
Pipeline, which begins in Cushing and terminates in Wood River, Illinois. Enbridge has
approximately 75 breakout tanks at the Cushing Terminal, with additional tanks under
construction.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Enbridge, by letter dated August 25, 2015, 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 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, and proposed assessing
a civil penalty of $40,300 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Enbridge
to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.
Enbridge responded to the Notice by letter dated October 2, 2015 (Response). The company
contested the allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Enbridge did not request a hearing.
On March 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
proceeding, finding that Enbridge had committed one violation of § 195.214, as alleged in the
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Aug. 25, 2015) (Violation Report) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 2
Notice.2 The agency assessed a reduced civil penalty of $33,100 for the violation and ordered
that Enbridge take certain corrective actions, as set forth in the Compliance Order that was part
of the Final Order.
In accordance with § 190.243, Enbridge filed a “Petition for Reconsideration or, in the
Alternative, Petition to Amend Language of the Final Order” on April 19, 2017. Enbridge did
not seek reconsideration of the finding of violation, civil penalty assessment, or compliance
order. Instead, Enbridge requested the amendment of certain language in the Final Order
regarding two factual findings.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an
appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is instead an opportunity for
respondents to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that
was not previously available, provided the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such
information was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny,
in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request
additional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the respondent
must submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to
issuance of the final order.
DISCUSSION
Item 1 in the Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which states:
§ 195.214 Welding procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with
welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the welding procedure
shall be determined by destructive testing.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the
results of the qualifying test. This record must be retained and followed
whenever the procedure is used.3
2 Enbridge Storage (Cushing), LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2015-5016, 2017 WL 1363416 (Mar. 24, 2017)
(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
3 See, 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 (2015). This section was amended, effective Oct. 1, 2015; however, because the
violation occurred before the amendment was effective, the previous version of the regulation, as quoted above,
applies in this case.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 3
The Final Order determined the Petitioner had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 by failing to ensure
that certain welding was performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding procedures
qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME IX). Specifically, the Final Order found that Enbridge violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.214 when it used two different welding procedures with different essential variables on the
same weld, and therefore failed to perform the welding according to either qualified procedure.
The Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $33,100 for the violation.
Enbridge did not seek reconsideration of the finding of violation or the amount of the civil
penalty, but specifically requested “that PHMSA amend the language regarding two of the [civil
penalty] mitigating factors: economic benefit and good faith.”4 With respect to economic
benefit, the Final Order found that Enbridge “probably realized an economic benefit by not
removing the work done on the first part of the welding and simply completing the work using a
different procedure.”5 The Final Order noted, however, that this finding did not have any impact
on the penalty because “the proposed penalty was not designed to offset any economic benefit.”6
Petitioner requested that the language in the final order referring to a probable economic benefit
be removed because it was irrelevant to the determination of the penalty and could be
misinterpreted.
Having reconsidered the record, I find that the evidence was insufficient for PHMSA to make
any finding concerning economic benefit. While the Final Order stated that Enbridge “probably”
realized an economic benefit by “not removing the work done on the first part of the welding and
simply completing the work using a different procedure,” this finding was not supported by any
probative evidence showing that Enbridge actually derived any tangible economic benefit from
the process by which it completed the weld in question. Moreover, it was not necessary to
conduct a factual inquiry into economic benefit because, as recognized in the Final Order,
economic benefit was not actually considered by PHMSA in proposing the penalty amount.
Accordingly, the finding in the Final Order that Petitioner probably realized an economic benefit
from its noncompliance is hereby withdrawn.
With respect to good faith, the Final Order found that Petitioner had not acted in furtherance of a
reasonable, good-faith interpretation of the regulations that would warrant a reduction in the
penalty. In so holding, the Final Order rejected an argument by Enbridge that its removal of the
first welding crew due to a confined-space violation constituted “good faith,” noting that the
operator was already required to remove the crew under such circumstances. Petitioner argued
that “the removal of the welding crew for non-compliance with confined space rules was acting
in good faith, even if that does not qualify for a good-faith reduction in the civil penalty,” and
suggested that this finding in the Final Order could also be misinterpreted.7
4 Petition, at 2.
5 Final Order, at 10.
6 Id..
7 Petition, at 3.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 4
To clarify the finding in the Final Order, when considering an operator’s “good faith” in
attempting to achieve compliance for the purpose of potentially reducing a proposed civil
penalty, PHMSA looks at whether the operator attempted to comply with the cited regulation
based upon “a reasonable interpretation of the requirement.”8 In this case, the Final Order
determined that Enbridge’s actions to comply with other safety regulations, such as confined-
space safety requirements, were already required and therefore did not qualify as a basis for
reducing the proposed penalty. Further, to the extent that Enbridge “believed the regulation
permitted different welding procedures to be combined along the same seam, Respondent’s
interpretation was unreasonable and does not justify reducing the penalty.”9 Having
reconsidered this finding, I find no grounds to amend the Final Order, but trust this clarification
addresses Petitioner’s concern.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Petition for Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in
part. The finding of violation in the Final Order, the associated penalty of $33,100, and the
associated compliance terms are hereby affirmed. Enbridge paid the civil penalty in full by wire
transfer dated April 11, 2017. The Compliance Order was not stayed by the filing of the Petition
and must be completed in accordance with the original terms of the March 24, 2017 Final Order.
This Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
February 9, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
8 Violation Report, at 11. See also, White Cliffs Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2011-5012, at 6, 2013 WL
1247518, at *4 (Feb. 5, 2013).
9 Final Order, at 10.

420155016_NOPV PCP PCO_08252015_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
And
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 25, 2015
Mr. Brad Shamla
Vice President, U.S. Operations
Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C.
1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 4-2015-5016
Dear Mr. Shamla:
On multiple occasions between July 23, 2012 and April 20, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code were onsite and conducted inspections of the
Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C (Enbridge) terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma, specifically
procedures and records related to the Enbridge BP/Amoco Pipe Modification Project (BP/Amoco
Project), AFE#1490541118. The project is ongoing and inspections are continuing.
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. §195.214 Welding Procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding
procedures qualified under Section 5 API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the
test welds used to qualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive
testing.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the
qualifying test. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure
is used.
Enbridge failed ensure that welding was performed by a qualified welder in accordance with
qualified welding procedures for the BP/Amoco Project. This welding procedure, 106 LT,
limited the maximum time between filler passes to no more than 15 minutes. On the afternoon
of March 6, 2015 at approximately 3:45 PM, Enbridge was performing welding on the
BP/Amoco project. Welders completed the root bead and a portion of the hot pass on a tie-in
weld when Enbridge personnel stopped the process after determining that welding personnel may
have failed to follow confined space procedures on a previous weld. After a lengthy discussion
among Enbridge personnel a decision was made that there was a violation of the Enbridge
confined space procedure and at approximately 6:30 PM the welding personnel were sent offsite
to be drug tested in accordance with Enbridge procedures.
At approximately 8:30 PM, Enbridge brought in another team of welders to complete the weld.
These welders, who were normally assigned to perform maintenance welding, were not provided
procedure 106 LT and were instructed to complete the weld as they described it “like other welds
we had made.” Rather than grinding out the partially completed weld and re-welding (because
more than 15 minutes had elapsed between passes) the welders were instructed to complete the
weld, disregarding the requirements of the qualified welding procedure.
According to the second set of welders, they completed the weld using a completely different
welding procedure than was used to start the weld. They used maintenance welding procedure
DB 48. This procedure differed from the 106 LT procedure that had been used to start the weld
in that DB 48 was qualified under ASME IX and 106 LT was qualified under API 1104. The
procedures also differed in some essential variables, including but not limited to, the filler metal,
the speed of travel, and the preheat temperature. DB 48 also required the hot pass be started
within 5 minutes of the root bead pass. Enbridge mixed welding procedures with different
essential variables on the same weld and failed to perform the welding according to the qualified
procedure.
In addition, the second set of welders that completed the weld had not qualified to weld the 106
LT procedure and stated that no readings were taken during the welding to ensure the heat input
was consistent with the requirements of the qualified welding procedure.
2



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000
per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of
violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not
exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a
related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $40,300.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code §60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enbridge Storage
(Cushing) L.L.C. 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 Compliance 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). 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 4-2015-5016 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, SW Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
3



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C. A
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance
of Enbridge Storage (Cushing) L.L.C. (Enbridge) with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. Related to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Enbridge failing to properly
perform welding according to a qualified welding procedure with qualified welders,
Enbridge must review all welding records associated with the Enbridge Cushing, OK
terminal, and remove and re-weld all welds not made according to a specific, applicable,
appropriate qualified welding procedure using properly qualified welders. This must
include the weld performed on March 6, 2015 that is the subject of this violation.
Enbridge must provide PHMSA copies of all of the welding records reviewed, weld maps
showing locations of each weld, and documentation of all welds removed and re-welded
including but not limited to the qualified welding procedure used, the welder
qualification records, the visual inspection records, inspection records showing that the
welding was performed according to the essential variables and parameters of the
qualified welding procedure, and NDE records showing that no defects were present in
the welds greater than allowed by API 1104 (ibr). The records must be organized so that
it is clear to PHMSA which welding records apply to each weld on the weld maps.
Item 1 shall be submitted to PHMSA no later than 30 days from the issuance of the Final
Order in this case.
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 R.M Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. It is requested that these costs 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.
4

420155016_Final Order_03242017_text.pdf

March 24, 2017
Mr. Mark A. Maki
President
Enbridge Energy Partners, LP
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3300
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Dear Mr. Maki:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $33,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by Enbridge Storage (Cushing) LLC, a subsidiary of Enbridge Energy Partners, 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, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service
of the Final Order by certified mail is effective 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. Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. David Stafford, Senior Manager, U.S. Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge Energy
Limited Partnership, 119 North 25th Street East, Superior, WI 54880
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 Storage (Cushing), LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5016
a subsidiary of Enbridge Energy Partners, LP, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
________________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between July 23, 2012 and April 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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
Storage (Cushing), LLC (Enbridge or Respondent), in Cushing, Oklahoma. The inspection
focused specifically on the procedures and records related to the Enbridge BP/Amoco Pipe
Modification Project (BP/Amoco Project). Enbridge operates a terminal facility in Cushing,
Oklahoma, that is part of the Ozark Pipeline, which begins in Cushing and terminates in Wood
River, Illinois. Enbridge has approximately 75 breakout tanks in the Cushing Terminal, with
additional tanks under construction.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 25, 2015, 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 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, and proposed assessing
a civil penalty of $40,300 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.
Enbridge responded to the Notice by letter dated October 2, 2015 (Response). The company
contested the allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Enbridge did not request a hearing and
has therefore waived its right to one.
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Aug. 25, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 2
FINDING 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. § 195.214,
2 which states:
§ 195.214 Welding procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with
welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the welding procedure
shall be determined by destructive testing.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the
results of the qualifying test. This record must be retained and followed
whenever the procedure is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 by failing to ensure that
welding was performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding procedures qualified
under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
(ASME IX). Specifically, the Notice alleged that on March 6, 2015, at approximately 3:45 PM,
Enbridge performed welding on its BP/Amoco project. After completion of the root bead on a
tie-in weld, the welders started the second pass or “hot-pass,” but stopped before the welding
was completed for a potential violation of confined space procedures on a previous weld. Only
the root bead and approximately half of the hot pass weld had been completed when the welding
was stopped. Welding Procedure 106 LT limits the maximum time between filler passes to no
more than 15 minutes.
Approximately five hours later, a second team of welders was brought in by Enbridge to
complete the weld using Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48. These welders were not
provided Welding Procedure 106 LT. Rather than grinding out the partially completed weld and
re-welding (because more than 15 minutes had elapsed between passes), the welders were
instructed to complete the weld, disregarding the requirements of the qualified welding
procedure. The second set of welders was not qualified to weld in accordance with Welding
Procedure 106 LT.
Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48 differs from Welding Procedure 106 LT procedure in
that Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48 is qualified under ASME IX, while Welding
Procedure 106 LT is qualified under API 1104. The procedures also differ in some essential
variables, including, but not limited to, the filler metal, the speed of travel, and the preheat
temperature. Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48 also requires that the hot pass be started
within five minutes of the root bead pass.
OPS stated that “Enbridge mixed welding procedures with different essential variables on the
2 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 (2015). Note, this section was amended, effective Oct. 1, 2015; however, because the
violation occurred before the amendment was effective, the previous version of the regulation applies here.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 3
same weld and failed to perform the welding according to the qualified procedure.”3
In its Response, Enbridge argued that § 195.214 does not contain a prohibition against the use of
more than one welding procedure. It stated that “[i]n this case, both welds were qualified in
accordance with the referenced standards and all welders were qualified to perform the
procedures they were executing.”4 Enbridge asserted that when welding resumed after the delay,
Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48 “was the governing procedure.” While an essential
variable for Welding Procedure 106 LT contains “a 15 minute maximum interpass time between
the first (root) and the second (hot) passes,”5 this is not an essential variable for Maintenance
Welding Procedure DB-48.6 Instead, Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48 contains “a
requirement to commence the hot pass within 5 minutes of completing the root pass as an
engineering best practice requirement for avoidance of hydrogen cracking in the vulnerable lone
root pass,” but this is not an essential variable for Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48.7
Enbridge argued that because “the maximum interpass time of DB-48 was not an essential
variable per the governing standard (ASME IX), the final weldment was dispositioned in
accordance with engineering judgement...”8
Enbridge consulted a subject matter expert in its Pipeline Integrity Department, who “determined
that the weld met the standard of acceptability and was not an integrity concern.”9 Enbridge
concluded that “combining two similar weld procedures is not prohibited under PHMSA or
consensus standards.”10
OPS responded that once Enbridge originated the weld using the Welding Procedure 106 LT, it
“had to follow the procedure or remove the weld and start over” to be in compliance with
§ 195.214.11 OPS argued that Welding Procedure 106 LT governed the procedure because it
was used to initiate the weld.12 It continued to oppose Enbridge’s statement that because the
interpass time was not an essential variable, it did not have to be followed. “An essential
variable change requires the procedure to be completely requalified but this does not mean that
3 Notice, at 2.
4 Response, at 2.
5 API 1104 WPS 106LT, Section 5.4.2.8.
6 Response, at 2.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id., at 2-3.
10 Id., at 3.
11 Region Recommendation, at 3.
12 Id., at 7.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 4
the other specifications on the qualified welding procedure required by the standard don’t have to
be followed.”13
OPS stated that Welding Procedure 106 LT prescribes the performance of an entire weld.14
Similarly, Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48 is for an entire weld and is qualified under
the ASME IX Code.15 Enbridge completed approximately half of the weld using Welding
Procedure 106 LT then completed it with the Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48.16
Neither procedure allows the welding “to be stopped partially through the weld and resumed
outside of the maximum time between passes… with a completely different procedure qualified
under a different standard.”17 While ASME IX Code permits using multiple Welding Procedure
Specifications on the same weld joint, it also requires that “all essential, nonessential, and
supplementary essential variables be followed and that welding procedures used on the same
joint be qualified under the ASME IX Code. Consequently, a welding procedure qualified under
API 1104 could not be part of an ASME Welding Procedure Specification, and therefore could
not be used on the same weld joint as an ASME qualified procedure.”18 Therefore, OPS alleged
that neither welding procedure was properly followed.19
In response to Enbridge’s argument that because the essential variables for the welding
procedures are different and it only needed to follow the essential variables of the second
welding procedure, OPS stated that § 195.214 specifies that the welding procedure must be
followed, not that “only essential variables must be followed and the rest of the procedure can be
ignored.”20 OPS argued that even if Enbridge were permitted to combine procedures, it “was
still required to weld according to the procedure specifications, including the interpass time.”21
OPS disagreed with Enbridge’s argument that it could “indiscriminately mix and match any
number of procedures on the same weld joint without regard to following the incorporated
standards, procedure specifications, essential variables, welding parameters, and welder
qualification requirements is completely contrary to the requirements of 49 CFR [§] 195.214 and
13 Id., at 7.
14 Id., at 3.
15 Id., at 5.
16 Id., at 5.
17 Id., at 3.
18 Id., at 7.
19 Id., at 5.
20 Id., at 5-6.
21 Id., at 6.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 5
the incorporated standards.”22 OPS explained that Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48
differed from Welding Procedure 106 LT “in filler metals, speed of travel, and several other
essential variables.”23
Regarding Enbridge’s reliance on its subject matter expert’s advice in using two different
welding procedures, OPS responded that the subject matter expert’s opinion could not “eliminate
the requirement that an operator must follow the qualified welding procedure” required by 49
C.F.R. § 195.214.24
The central issue in this case is whether an operator is permitted to combine two welding
procedures qualified under different standards on the same joint. I find that Enbridge violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.214 when it used two different welding procedures with different essential
variables on the same weld, and therefore failed to perform the welding according to either
qualified procedure.
The regulatory requirement to follow the qualified welding procedure in 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 is
based on the fact that performing welding by following the requirements of the qualified welding
procedure is the only way that an operator can have the necessary assurance that the completed
weld will have the required strength and mechanical properties.25 A welding procedure is
qualified by first welding the proposed procedure, then destructively testing weld coupons in
order to ensure that the procedure will result in the weld having the proper strength and
mechanical properties for the intended application. This process is performed under strict
compliance with the requirements of one of the standards incorporated by reference into Part
195, and relies on establishing parameters for all essential variables and other welding procedure
specification information that must be followed every time the procedure is used.26
Consequently, the only assurance that welds in the field will have the strength and mechanical
properties comparable to the qualifying welds is to follow the essential variables and other
welding procedure specification information written in the qualified welding procedure.27
Replicating the welding procedure “recipe” each time a weld is made in the field is the only way
that an operator can have any certainty that each weld will have the strength and mechanical
properties comparable to the qualifying weld.28
22 Id., at 6-7.
23 Id.
24 Id., at 9.
25 Id., at 3.
26 Id.
27 Id., at 4.
28 Id., at 3.



CPF No. 4-2015-5016
Page 6
Section 195.214 states that “[w]elding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance
with welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.29 The regulation does not contemplate, or permit, an operator
to partially weld with one welding procedure and then complete the work with another
procedure.30 Each procedure must be completed fully or restarted from scratch. API Standard
1104, Section 5.4.l, states that “[a] welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure
specification and must be completely requalified when any of the essential variables listed in
5.4.2 are changed.”31 Likewise, the two welding procedures are not compatible, and neither
contains provisions for re-initiating welding using a different welding procedure qualified under
a different standard with different essential variables.
Welding Procedure 106 LT limits the maximum time between filler passes to no more than 15
minutes. Outside of this time frame, an operator cannot restart the welding process without
removing the original welding and start from scratch. According to API Standard 1104, Section
5.4.2.8, the length of time between passes is an essential variable and any changes require the
welding procedure to be completely requalified. Restarting the welding after over five hours had
elapsed disregarded Welding Procedure 106 LT’s essential variable of maximum time between
passes. When Enbridge stopped the welding and failed to re-initiate the next welding pass within
the 15-minute time period as specified by the qualified procedure, the partially-completed weld
was required to be ground out and the entire weld redone because there were no provisions in the
procedure for an interpass time exceeding 15 minutes. Enbridge therefore violated § 195.214 by
failing to perform the welding according to API Standard 1104.
Essential variables are those welding variables that have the most significant influence on the
strength and mechanical properties of the weld, such as tensile strength and ductility.32 Before
any changes can be made to an essential variable, the welding procedure must be completely
requalified.
Enbridge also did not comply with the Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48, which does not
permit completing a weld initiated using another welding procedure with different essential
variables. For Enbridge to use Maintenance Welding Procedure DB-48, which was qualified
under a different standard (ASME IX) with different essential, non-essential, and supplemental
variables, they would have had to remove the weld, material deposited using Welding Procedure
106 LT, re-bevel the pipes, and re-weld the joint.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.214 by failing to ensure that welding was performed by 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 55433