{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12023049WL","title":"ANR PIPELINE CO — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-06-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 191.25(a), 192.605(a), 192.739(a)(1), 192.905(c), 192.933(d)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12023049wl.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12023049wl.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12023049wl","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12023049WL","body":"Warning Letter involving ANR PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.25(a),  192.605(a),  192.739(a)(1),  192.905(c),  192.933(d)(1). The case was opened on 2023-06-01 and is reported as closed as of 2023-06-01. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12023049WL_Warning Letter_06012023_(20-171887).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023049WL/12023049WL_Warning%20Letter_06012023_(20-171887).pdf\n\n12023049WL_Warning Letter_06012023_(20-171887)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023049WL/12023049WL_Warning%20Letter_06012023_(20-171887)_text.pdf\n\n12023049WL_Warning Letter_06012023_(20-171887)_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nJune 1, 2023\nMr. Stanley Chapman III\nPresident US & MX Natural Gas Pipelines\nANR Pipeline Co.\n700 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 1-2023-049-WL\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nFrom June 23, 2020 to April 6, 2022, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), and inspectors from the Michigan Public Service Commission\n(MPSC) and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), acting as agents of PHMSA,\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected ANR Pipeline Co.’s (ANR)\npipeline system located within PHMSA inspection system #1169, including inspection units for\nfacilities located in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. § 191.25 Filing safety-related condition reports.\n(a) Each report of a safety-related condition under § 191.23(a)(1)\nthrough (9) must be filed (received by the Associate Administrator) in\nwriting within 5 working days (not including Saturday, Sunday, or\nFederal holidays) after the day a representative of an operator first\ndetermines that the condition exists, but not later than 10 working days\nafter the day a representative of an operator discovers the condition.\nSeparate conditions may be described in a single report if they are\nclosely related. Reporting methods and report requirements are\ndescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.\n\n\n\nANR failed to file a safety related condition (SRC) report within the reporting requirements of\n§ 191.25(a). Specifically, ANR failed to file a report within 5 working days after the day a\nrepresentative first determined that a condition existed, but not later than 10 working days after\nthe day a representative of ANR discovered the condition, regarding an MAOP exceedance.\nDuring the inspection, an MPSC inspector reviewed records pertaining to the TC Energy Pipeline\n– ANR SWML located in Big Rapids, Michigan. Records reflected that the compressor\nexperienced a shutdown and certain valves did not operate as intended. The result was that a 20-\nfoot section of the ANR- SWML pipeline experienced an over-pressure event. The line’s MAOP\nwas 903 psig, and the overpressure event caused the pressure on the 20-foot section to reach 1022\npsig.\nThe inspector noted that ANR’s MAOP Exceedance Report to PHMSA was submitted on June 1,\n2020, but stated that ANR’s discovery date of the overpressure occurred on May 5, 2020.\nTherefore, ANR failed to report safety related condition in accordance with the reporting\nrequirements of § 191.25.\n2. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at\nlocations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nANR failed to follow their manual of written procedures for emergency response. Specifically,\nANR failed to follow their Tier 3 (site-specific) Emergency Response Plan Maintenance (ERP)\nprocedure, published 4/1/2020, regarding retaining copies of the Tier 3 ERP at Field Operations\nfacilities.\nSection 4.1.3 of the ERP, titled Maintaining Paper Copies of Tier 3 ERPs, required that a paper\ncopy of the latest version of the ERP be stored at each Field Operations facility within the\njurisdiction.\nDuring the on-site inspection, PHMSA requested paper copies of the latest Tier 3 ERP at the Saint\nJohn’s and LaGrange Compressor Stations. Neither location had the latest paper copy as required\nby their procedures. After the inspection was completed, ANR did show evidence that both\ncompressor stations had obtained a paper copy of the latest version of the Tier 3 ERP.\nTherefore, ANR failed to follow their manual of written procedures regarding retaining copies of\nits Tier 3 ERP at each Field.\n\n\n\n3. § 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture\ndiscs), and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be\nsubjected at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year, to inspections and tests to determine that it is….\n(1) In good mechanical condition.\nANR failed to ensure that each pressure regulating station was in good mechanical condition in\naccordance with § 192.739(a)(1).\nDuring the inspection, an MPSC inspector reviewed records of inspections and tests at the Lincoln\nCompressor Station for fuel gas regulators. The annual maintenance and work orders reflected\nthat fuel gas regulator 105R was discovered to not be in working order during the September 2018\ninspection and testing. The next inspection and testing was conducted in September 2019 and\nrecords indicated that the regulator was in the same, non-working status.\nTherefore, ANR failed to ensure each pressure regulating station was in good mechanical condition\nin accordance with § 192.739(a)(1).\n4. § 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) …\n(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that\nthe area around a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high\nconsequence area could satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the\noperator must complete the evaluation using method (1) or (2). If the\nsegment is determined to meet the definition as a high consequence\narea, it must be incorporated into the operator's baseline assessment\nplan as a high consequence area within one year from the date the area\nis identified.\nANR failed to incorporate a newly identified High Consequence Area (HCA) into their baseline\nassessment plan within one year from the date the area was identified, in accordance with\n§ 192.905(c).\nIn early 2020, ANR was notified that a PHMSA Integrated Inspection (including unit 4563) was\nplanned for that year. In April 2020, ANR self-reported to the PHMSA Eastern Region Director\nits failure of incorporating a newly identified HCA within PHMSA inspection unit 4563 into its\nbaseline assessment plan within one year, pursuant to § 192.905(c).\nDuring the unit inspection, PHMSA reviewed ANR’s records pursuant to this new HCA. The\nrecords reflected that during February 2018, ANR’s operational personnel identified a new\nidentified site (IS), KNU Design Center, within the 300 ft buffer from the ANR right-of-way\nlocated in the town of Ferdinand, Indiana. This right-of-way houses three ANR pipelines: Mainline\nLoop Line 1-501; Mainline 501; and Mainline loop 2-501. A site identification field form was\ncompleted regarding the population and structure update for this newly identified site. On Feb 20,\n2018, the ANR GIS data entry personnel received the site identification form and entered a portion\n\n\n\nof the site identification, but failed to enter the correct attribute data into the geographic\ninformation system (GIS) needed to flag the IS.\nSubsequently, ANR conducted a July 2019 Desktop Population Density Survey which discovered\nthe 2018 oversite/ administration error.\nTherefore, ANR failed to incorporate a newly identified HCA into their baseline assessment plan\nwithin one year from the date the area was identified, in accordance with § 192.905(c).\n5. § 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?\n(a) …\n(d) Special requirements for scheduling remediation-\n(1) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and\nremediation schedule must follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 7 in\nproviding for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an\noperator must temporarily reduce operating pressure in accordance\nwith paragraph (a) of this section or shut down the pipeline until the\noperator completes the repair of these conditions. An operator must\ntreat the following conditions as immediate repair conditions…\nANR’s evaluation and remediation schedule failed to follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S, 2004 Edition\n(B31.8S), Section 7, as required by § 192.933(d)(1). Specifically, ANR failed to schedule the\nevaluation of Feature 720 of its 2016 Mainline 100 magnetic flux leakage (MFL) in-line inspection\n(ILI) as an immediate repair condition pursuant to Section 7.2.1 of B31.8S.\nB31.8S, Section 7.2.1 states in part (emphasis added):\nIndications requiring immediate response are those that might be expected to cause\nimmediate or near-term leaks or ruptures based on their known or perceived effects\non the strength of the pipeline. This would include… Also in this group would be\nany metal-loss indication affecting a detected longitudinal seam, if that seam was\nformed by direct current or low-frequency electrical resistance welding or by\nelectrical flash welding. The operator shall examine these indications within a\nperiod not to exceed 5 days following determination of the condition.\nDuring the inspection, an MPSC inspector reviewed a 2017 Pipe Engineering Final Memo, dated\nMarch 1, 2017 (Memo) as well as the September 2018 Post ILI verification dig report regarding\nthe 2016 ILI “ANR 0-100 Bridgeman to Woolfolk, MLV 60 to MLV 68 MFL”. The Memo\nidentified Feature 720 to be an external metal loss feature with a peak depth of 45% under a casing\nand associated with a seam weld. Feature 720 is in an HCA area, the pipe was manufactured by\nAO Smith and installed in 1949, and the longitudinal seam welds were produced by the electrical\nflash welding (EFW) method.\nThe tool run date for this ILI was Aug 10, 2016, with a preliminary report submitted on August\n25, 2016, and a final report dated October 11, 2016. The actual date of the examination dig for\nFeature 720 was September 19, 2018, over 1 year and 11 months past the 5-day requirement.\n\n\n\nTherefore, ANR failed to follow § 192.933(d)(1) by not following the evaluation and remediation\nscheduling requirements of B31.8S, Section 7 pursuant to an immediate repair condition of metal\nloss affected a longitudinal seam formed by EFW.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$257,664 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,576,627 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after March 21, 2022, and before January 6,\n2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed $239,142 per violation per day the violation persists,\nup to a maximum of $2,391,142 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or\nafter May 3, 2021, and before March 21, 2022, the maximum penalty may not exceed $225,134\nper violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of\nviolations. For violation occurring on or after January 11, 2021, and before May 3, 2021, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a\nmaximum of $2,225,034 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July\n31, 2019, and before January 11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per\nviolation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of\nviolations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018, and before July 31, 2019, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015, and before November\n27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,090,022.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nANR Pipeline Co being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 1-2023-049-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":13871}