{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320161001","title":"ANR PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-01-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(a), 191.5(a), 191.5(b), 192.479(a), 192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.625(a), 192.625(b), 192.736(c), 199.105(b), 199.225(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320161001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320161001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320161001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320161001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ANR PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.15(a),  191.5(a),  191.5(b),  192.479(a),  192.603(b),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.625(a),  192.625(b),  192.736(c),  199.105(b),  199.225(a)(1). The case was opened on 2016-01-28 and is reported as closed as of 2019-08-01. Proposed civil penalty: $220,200. Assessed civil penalty: $220,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320161001_Closure Letter_08012019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_Closure%20Letter_08012019.pdf\n\n320161001_Closure Letter_08012019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_Closure%20Letter_08012019_text.pdf\n\n320161001_Final Order_10242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_Final%20Order_10242017.pdf\n\n320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_Final%20Order_10242017_text.pdf\n\n320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01282016.pdf\n\n320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01282016_text.pdf\n\n320161001_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_03012016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320161001/320161001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_03012016.pdf\n\n320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf\n\nOctober 24, 2017\nMr. Russell Girling\nPresident and CEO\nTransCanada Corporation\n450 1st St. SW\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 5Hl\nRe: CPF No. 3-2016-1001\nDear Mr. Girling:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $220,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nANR Pipeline Company, a wholly owned pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,\nas determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Sonya Kirby, Vice President, Safety, Quality & Compliance, TransCanada\nCorporation, 700 Louisiana, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nANR Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2016-1001\na subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 24-28, July 15-19, August 5-19, August 26-30, October 22-25, and December 2-6,\n2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities\nCommission, and the Iowa Utilities Board conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the\nfacilities and records of ANR Pipeline Company (ANR or Respondent) in Texas, Iowa, Missouri,\nKansas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MI-\nPSC) also inspected ANR’s facilities in Michigan during several weeks in 2012. ANR’s system\ndelivers natural gas from Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma to customers throughout the Midwest.\nIt has approximately 10,600 miles of pipe and owns and operates four storage fields in Michigan\nwith 64 billion cubic feet of capacity.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated January 28, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that ANR had\ncommitted 10 violations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 191, 192, and 199, and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $220,200 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further\naction, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face future potential\nenforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letters dated March 1, 2016 and June 20, 2016\n(collectively, Response). ANR did not contest the allegations of violations, but presented\ninformation seeking modification of the proposed compliance order through a potential consent\nagreement; if were not possible, the company requested a hearing. By letter dated August 24,\n2016, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing and thereby authorized the entry of this\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Jan. 28, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 2\nFinal Order without further notice.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ANR did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Parts\n191, 192, and 199, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, which states:\n§ 191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator\nshall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each\nincident as defined in §191.3.\n(b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made to\nthe National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424- 8802 (in\nWashington, D.C., 202-267-2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil\nand must include the following information:\n(1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone\nnumbers.\n(2) The location of the incident.\n(3) The time of the incident.\n(4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any.\n(5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant\nto the cause of the incident or extent of the damages.\nThe Notice also referenced 49 C.F.R. § 191.3, which states, in relevant part:\n§ 191.3 Definitions.\n….\nIncident means any of the following events:\n(1) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline, or of liquefied\nnatural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, refrigerant gas, or gas from an LNG\nfacility, and that results in one or more of the following consequences:\n(i) A death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization;\n(ii) Estimated property damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the\noperator and others, or both, but excluding cost of gas lost;\n(iii) Unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more;\n(2) An event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility.\nActivation of an emergency shutdown system for reasons other than an actual\nemergency does not constitute an incident.\n(3) An event that is significant in the judgment of the operator, even though\nit did not meet the criteria of paragraphs (1) or (2) of this definition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to notify the National\nResponse Center (NRC) of a 2012 “incident,” as defined in § 191.3, that occurred at ANR’s\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 3\ncompressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on July 13, 2012,\nan incident occurred at the Sandwich compressor station, but the company made no notification\nto the NRC. The property damage, excluding cost of any gas lost, was over $50,000.\nThe incident involved a release of natural gas from a valve in the pipeline system into the\nsilencer on Compressor Unit 1009 and the resulting ignition of gas. The released gas ignited at\nthe silencer resulted in an uncontrolled burn that damaged the silencer and exhaust piping, and\nthe silencer fell over and damaged the compressor building as well. Despite this damage to its\npipeline facility caused by a natural gas fire, ANR did not contact the NRC.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to give notice to the\nNRC of a 2012 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, as quoted above, by\nfailing to notify the NRC of another 2013 “incident,” as defined in § 191.3, that occurred at\nANR’s compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on August\n9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, ANR experienced a second reportable incident at the Sandwich\ncompressor station where the company made no notification to the NRC. The property damage,\nexcluding the cost of lost gas, was over $50,000.\nThe incident involved a release of natural gas when gas leaked past pressure and wiper packing\nof the compressor unit during maintenance of the unit. After leaking past the compressor\npacking, the natural gas entered the crankcase of the compressor unit. The leak into the\ncrankcase (which is not a part of the pipeline system that moves gas in transportation) resulted in\nthe ignition and explosion of the gas, causing substantial damage to equipment and the\ncompressor building. Despite the damage to its pipeline facility caused by a natural gas\nexplosion, ANR failed to contact the NRC.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to give notice to the\nNRC of a 2013 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), which states:\n§ 191.15 Transmission systems; gathering systems; and liquefied natural\ngas facilities; Incident report.\n(a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a\ngathering pipeline system must submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 as soon\nas practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident required\nto be reported under §191.5 of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written\nreport, as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident that was\nrequired to be reported under § 191.5. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ANR failed to submit\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 4\na written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of\nthe 2012 incident described in Item 1 above and that was required to be reported under § 191.5.\nBased on information provided by ANR during PHSMA’s 2013 inspection, the costs of this\nincident totaled over $200,000. According to ANR’s root cause analysis report provided during\nthat same inspection, natural gas released from a valve in the pipeline system into the engine and\nsilencer creating a combustible mixture in the silencer that ignited and resulted in an\nuncontrolled burning of gas at the silencer.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a\nwritten report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an\nincident that was required to be reported under § 191.5.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), as quoted above, by\nfailing to submit a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days\nafter detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that ANR failed to submit a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but\nnot more than 30 days after detection of the 2013 incident described in Item 2 and that was\nrequired to be reported under §191.5. According to the Notice, the damage was significant and\nthe total cost of the incident was $580,205.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a\nwritten report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an\nincident that was required to be reported under § 191.5.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. . .\n(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance and modifying the procedure when deficiencies are\nfound.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to follow its\nown manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities.\nSpecifically, it alleged that ANR failed to follow its written “walk-along” procedure throughout\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 5\nthe company to review the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and\nadequacy of the procedures being used in normal operation and maintenance. According to the\nNotice, ANR was unable to provide sufficient records to the PHMSA inspectors demonstrating\nthat the walk-along program was being used throughout the company. The MI-PSC inspections\nin 2012 also identified the same issue. ANR personnel indicated in 2012 and in 2013 that final\nprocedures were still under development, but a form had been established and was being used\nduring the interim period. ANR provided examples of the form that was being used in 2013 in\nMichigan and another one that was used in Wisconsin in 2011; however, there were no other\nrecords indicating that the walk-along program and forms were being used elsewhere on the\nANR system.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to follow its\nown manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states:\n§ 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under §192.605.\nThe Notice also referenced § 192.605, which states, in relevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response . . . .\n(c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded:\n(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:\n(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;\n(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating\nlimits;\n(iii) Loss of communications;\n(iv) Operation of any safety device; and\n(v) Any other foreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from\nnormal operation, or personnel error, which may result in a hazard to persons\nor property. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records to\nadminister the procedures it had established under § 192.605. Specifically, it alleged that ANR\nfailed to document the follow-up investigation of multiple abnormal operations that occurred on\nits pipeline system. A review of the company’s Incident and Issue Tracking (IIT) database\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 6\nshowed several instances when documentation of further investigation and corrective measures\nhad not occurred. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IIT #237072 was for a leak of lube oil\nfrom a broken pressure gauge and IIT #255422 involved a pressure increase outside normal\nlimits at ANR’s Rapid River Compressor Station. The IIT entries indicated that procedures were\nnot completely effective in responding to the abnormal operations; however, no further\ndocumentation was provided to show what corrections, if any, had been made.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep\nrecords to administer the procedures it had established under § 192.605.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a-b), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant\nor be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive\nlimit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.\n(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a\nClass 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph\n(a)of this section . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a-b) by failing to odorize\ncombustible gas in its transmission pipeline facilities in Wisconsin so that at a concentration in\nair of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the gas was readily detectable by a person with a\nnormal sense of smell. Specifically, the Notice alleged that for ANR’s odorized transmission-\nline facilities in Wisconsin, the company’s records did not demonstrate that the gas was odorized\nto the proper concentration level.\nAccording to the Notice, PHMSA’s review of the odorization records identified multiple\nlocations where the readings taken did not meet the one-fifth gas-in-air (0.9%) of the lower\nexplosive limit of natural gas (4.5% gas-in-air). On the Green Bay 350 line, the percent gas-in-\nair readings taken from November 2012 to July 2013 ranged from 1.06% to 1.29%. On the\nGreen Bay 350-1 line, the readings taken from January 2013 to July 2013 varied from 1.11%\nto1.28%, and on the Green Bay 350-2 line, the readings ranged from 0.93% to 1.29% during the\nsame time period. Finally, on the Oshkosh 1-355 line, the readings were all above 0.9% from\nMay 2013 to September 2013.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a) by failing to odorize the\nnatural gas in its transmission facilities in Wisconsin so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth\nof the lower explosive limit, the gas was readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of\nsmell.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 7\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this\nsection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and\ncoat a pipeline at the pipe supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that at the Milan Tap and Meter Station in Michigan, ANR failed to clean and\ncoat the pipeline at the pipe supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere. The MI-PSC field\nevaluation found atmospheric corrosion at these supports.\nThe pipeline supports could not be lowered so ANR can properly inspect and address the pipe on\nthe supports. As a result, actual metal loss from atmospheric corrosion was noted during MI-\nPSC’s field inspection.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and\ncoat a pipeline at the pipe supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 199.105 Drug tests required.\nEach operator shall conduct the following drug tests for the presence of a\nprohibited drug:\n(a) . . .\n(b) Post-accident testing. As soon as possible but no later than 32 hours\nafter an accident, an operator shall drug test each employee whose performance\neither contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a\ncontributing factor to the accident. An operator may decide not to test under\nthis paragraph but such a decision must be based on the best information\navailable immediately after the accident that the employee’s performance could\nnot have contributed to the accident or that, because of the time between that\nperformance and the accident, it is not likely that a drug test would reveal\nwhether the performance was affected by drug use.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b) by failing to administer\npost-accident drug tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion\nincident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that on August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, compressor unit #1009 in Sandwich,\nIllinois, experienced an explosion of natural gas in the crankcase that resulted in significant\ndamage to the compressor unit and building. As mentioned above in Item 4, during maintenance\nof the compressor unit, a torch was utilized by an ANR employee to remove a seal. The Notice\nalleged that, based on the best information available immediately after the incident, it was not\nreasonable for the operator to make the decision that the employees’ performance could be\ncompletely discounted as a contributing factor. In fact, ANR’s subsequent root-cause analysis\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 8\nconfirmed that employee performance during the maintenance activity contributed to the\nincident.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b) by failing to administer\npost-accident drug tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion\nincident that occurred at the company’s compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 199.225 Alcohol tests required.\nEach operator shall conduct the following types of alcohol tests for the\npresence of alcohol:\n(a) Post-accident. (1) As soon as practicable following an accident, each\noperator shall test each surviving covered employee for alcohol if that\nemployee's performance of a covered function either contributed to the accident\nor cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. The\ndecision not to administer a test under this section shall be based on the\noperator’s determination, using the best available information at the time of the\ndetermination, that the covered employee’s performance could not have\ncontributed to the accident.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1) by failing to administer\npost-accident alcohol tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion\nincident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that on August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, compressor unit #1009 in Sandwich,\nIllinois, experienced an explosion of natural gas in the crankcase that resulted in obviously\nsignificant damage to the compressor unit and building. The Notice alleged that during\nmaintenance of the compressor unit, a torch had been utilized by an ANR employee to remove a\nseal. According to the Notice, based on the best information available immediately after the\nincident, it was not reasonable for the operator to make the decision that the employees’\nperformance could be completely discounted as a contributing factor. In fact, ANR’s subsequent\nroot-cause analysis confirmed that employee performance during the maintenance activity\ncontributed to the incident.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1) by failing to\nadminister post-accident alcohol tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-\nexplosion incident that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 9\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $220,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.5, for failing to notify the NRC of a 2012 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor\nstation in Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$47,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.5, for failing to notify the NRC of a 2013 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor\nstation in Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$47,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(a), for failing to submit a written report, as soon as practicable but not more than 30\ndays, after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. ANR neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or\nreduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $40,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(a), for failing to submit a written report, as soon as practicable but not more than 30\ndays, after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. ANR neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or\nreduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $40,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(a).\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 10\nItem 10: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 199.105(b), for failing to administer post-accident drug tests to three employees\ninvolved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station\nin Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$22,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b).\nItem 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1), for failing to administer post-accident alcohol tests to three employees\ninvolved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station\nin Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$22,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $220,200.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 S\nMacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division\ntelephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $220,200 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 191 and 192. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has\nindicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address some of the cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 191.15(a) (Items 3 and 4), Respondent\nsubmitted the required 30-day written reports for the incidents that occurred on\n\n\n\n2. 3. 4. CPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 11\nJuly 13, 2012, and August 9, 2013. OPS Central Region staff reviewed the two\nreports [Nos. 20160051 & 20160052], and the reports are now final in the Online\nData Entry System (ODES) database, with no further action required.\nWith respect to the violation of § 191.15(a) (Items 3 and 4), Respondent\ndeveloped a plan to review all sources of data, including, but not limited to:\nANR’s IIT database, root-cause analysis reports, unaccounted-for gas reports,\nleak databases, etc., and submitted required original and supplemental incident\nreports through ODES. Since the date of the Notice, ANR also reviewed events\noccurring on the ANR pipeline system between January 1, 2010, and May 31,\n2016, and determined that no other events required additional reporting under\n§§ 191.5 and 191.15. ANR submitted a listing of the 233 events in the June 2016\nresponse. With the submission of such information, ANR has satisfied the terms\nof the proposed compliance order for these items.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.603(b) (Item 6), Respondent reviewed the\ndatabase for abnormal operations that occurred on or after May 19, 2009, through\nMay 31, 2016. The review found 460 abnormal-operation records for the ANR\npipeline system. Of the 460 abnormal operations reviewed, 59 records had\ndocumented the corrective measures. Review of the 59 records found deficiencies\nfor five records within the IIT database and two records within the Systems\nApplications Products database. These deficient records were updated to include\nproper documentation and pertinent information. ANR submitted the list of seven\nabnormal operations that required further documentation in its June 2016\nresponse. ANR has therefore completed the proposed item and satisfied the terms\nof the proposed compliance order for this item.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.625 (Item 7), Respondent re-trained\npersonnel taking odorant readings and completed the training on May 4, 2016. It\nsubmitted a copy of the training records to the Director with its June 2016\nresponse. ANR has therefore completed the proposed item and satisfied the terms\nof the proposed compliance order for this item.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 3, 4, 6 and 7 are not included\nin this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 5), Respondent must\nprovide a detailed written procedure to address the periodic review of work done to\ndetermine the effectiveness of its operations and maintenance procedures. The\nprocedure must encompass all aspects of the outline provided by ANR in its June\n2016 response, with emphasis on how the review of the work will be accomplished\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 12\nand thoroughly describe how the program will be documented. Respondent must\nsubmit the written program to the Director within 90 days of the issuance of the Final\nOrder, implement the revised procedure within 180 days of the Final Order, and\nprovide semi-annual reports to the Director on the results of the revised program for a\nperiod of one year from the implementation date.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.479(a) (Item 8), Respondent must conduct\nan atmospheric-corrosion inspection of all meter stations in the Michigan operating\narea that have similar pipe supports, and submit a remedial action plan with a\nschedule and listing of facilities still requiring remediation to the Director for\napproval no later than 120 days after issuance of the Final Order.\nAll required written submissions shall be sent to the attention of the Director, Central Region,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that ANR Pipeline Company maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, 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 administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000 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.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 9, the Notice alleged a probable violation of § 192.736 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.736(c) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain the\ngas detectors at the Bridgeman Compressor Station for units 1206 to 1209.\nANR presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, 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\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2016-1001\nPage 13\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\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nOctober 24, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 28, 2016\nMr. Vern Meier\nVice President, Field Operations\nANR Pipeline Company / TransCanada\n717 Texas Avenue\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 3-2016-1001\nDear Mr. Meier:\nOn June 24-28, July 15-19, August 5-19, August 26-30, October 22-25, and December 2-6,\n2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, and the\nIowa Utilities Board, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected ANR\nPipeline Company’s (ANR) records and procedures in Houston, Texas, and ANR facilities\nin Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Michigan Public\nService Commission (MI PSC) inspected your records and facilities in Michigan during\nseveral weeks in 2012.\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\nand the","truncated":true,"body_characters":63328}