Case 1:16-cv-00914 ECF No. 3 filed 07/20/16 PageID.28 Page 1 of 228 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ___________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED ) PARTNERSHIP, ) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (LAKEHEAD) L.L.C., ) Civil Action No. ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., ) ENBRIDGE ENERGY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., ) Judge ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC. , ) ENBRIDGE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, INC., ) ENBRIDGE OPERATIONAL SERVICES, INC., ) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC., and ) ENBRIDGE EMPLOYEE SERVICES CANADA ) INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ ) CONSENT DECREE Case 1:16-cv-00914 ECF No. 3 filed 07/20/16 PageID.29 Page 2 of 228 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................... 10 APPLICABILITY ............................................................................................................ 11 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. 12 CIVIL PENALTY ............................................................................................................ 20 PAYMENTS FOR REMOVAL COSTS RELATING TO LINE 6B DISCHARGES ................................................................................................. 21 INJUNCTIVE MEASURES ............................................................................................ 25 A. ORIGINAL US LINE 6B ................................................................................................ 25 B. REPLACEMENT OF LINE 3 ......................................................................................... 25 C. HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TESTING ....................................................................... 29 D. IN-LINE INSPECTION BASED SPILL PREVENTION PROGRAM .......................... 31 (I) In-Line Inspections ...................................................................................................... 31 (II) Review of ILI Data ...................................................................................................... 33 (III) Identification of Features Requiring Excavation ........................................................ 38 (IV) Predicted Burst Pressure/Fitness for Service .............................................................. 45 (V) Dig Selection Criteria .................................................................................................. 47 (VI) Remaining Life Determinations/Reinspection Intervals ............................................. 73 E. MEASURES TO PREVENT SPILLS IN THE STRAITS OF MACKINAC ................. 75 F. DATA INTEGRATION .................................................................................................. 81 G. LEAK DETECTION AND CONTROL ROOM OPERATIONS ................................... 84 (I) Assessment of Alternative Leak Detection Technologies .......................................... 84 (II) Report on Feasibility of Installing External Leak Detection System at the Straits of Mackinac .............................................................. 85 (III) Requirements for New Lakehead Pipelines and Replacement Segments ................... 86 (IV) Leak Detection Requirements for Pipelines within the Lakehead System ................. 94 (V) Leak Detection Requirements for Control Room ..................................................... 102 H. SPILL RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS ............................................................... 111 I. NEW REMOTELY CONTROLLED VALVES ........................................................... 125 J. INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY CONSENT DECREE COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION ................................................................................. 127 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS ........................................................ 137 ii Case 1:16-cv-00914 ECF No. 3 filed 07/20/16 PageID.30 Page 3 of 228 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 138 INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ................................................ 142 STIPULATED PENALTIES ......................................................................................... 144 FORCE MAJEURE ....................................................................................................... 148 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................. 150 EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ...................................... 152 COSTS ........................................................................................................................... 155 NOTICES ....................................................................................................................... 155 EFFECTIVE DATE ....................................................................................................... 157 RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................... 157 MODIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 157 TERMINATION ............................................................................................................ 158 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................... 160 SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ............................................................................................ 160 INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................ 161 FINAL JUDGMENT ..................................................................................................... 161 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 162 iii Case 1:16-cv-00914 ECF No. 3 filed 07/20/16 PageID.31 Page 4 of 228 BACKGROUND Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”), filed this Consent Decree concurrently with a complaint against nine related parties – namely, Enbridge Energy, L.P., Enbridge Pipelines (Lakehead) L.L.C., Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C., Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., Enbridge Employee Services, Inc., Enbridge Operational Services, Inc., Enbridge Pipelines Inc. and Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc. (hereinafter “Enbridge” or “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges that Defendants own and operate the Enbridge Mainline System – one of the world’s largest pipeline systems with more than 3,000 miles of pipeline corridors in the United States and Canada. According to Enbridge, the Mainline System is the single largest conduit of liquid petroleum into the United States, delivering on-average 1.7 million barrels of oil into the U.S. each day – a figure that accounts for 23% of the U.S. crude oil imports. The portion of the Mainline System within the United States is known as the Lakehead Pipeline System (“Lakehead System”) and includes a network of pipelines that are grouped within right-of-ways that collectively span 1,900 miles from the international border near Neche, North Dakota to delivery points in the Midwest, New York, and Ontario. The products transported by these pipelines allegedly include natural gas liquids and a variety of light and heavy crude oils. The Complaint asserts claims against Enbridge under Sections 309 and 311 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1321, and Section 2702 of the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”), 33 U.S.C. § 2702, with respect to two oil spills that occurred in 2010 as the result of unlawful discharges of oil from two Lakehead System pipelines (“2010 Oil Spills”). The Complaint alleges that the first oil spill occurred when Lakehead System Line 6B (“Line Case 1:16-cv-00914 ECF No. 3 filed 07/20/16 PageID.32 Page 5 of 228 6B”) ruptured near Marshall, Michigan on July 25, 2010 and, over the course of two days, repeatedly discharged harmful quantities of oil to navigable waters of the United States, including Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, and adjoining shorelines (“Line 6B Discharges”). The Complaint alleges that the second spill occurred two months later when another Lakehead System pipeline – known as Line 6A – developed a large leak near Romeoville, Illinois and discharged harmful quantities of oil to navigable waters of the United States, including an unnamed tributary to the Des Plaines River, and adjoining shorelines (“Line 6A Discharges”). Enbridge contends that the Romeoville Discharge was caused by a third-party water pipeline failure that damaged Line 6A. The Complaint alleges that the Line 6B Discharges resulted in the release of at least 20,082 barrels of oil. The Complaint further alleges that, as a result of such releases, the Kalamazoo River was closed in places over a three-year period while Enbridge engaged in an extensive cleanup effort in accordance with a series of orders issued by EPA under Section 311(c) of CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(c), starting with an initial order issued on July 26, 2010. Such cleanup efforts included, among other things, dredging sections of