ANR PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF320161001_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_03012016.pdf#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFOctober 24, 2017 Mr. Russell Girling President and CEO TransCanada Corporation 450 1st St. SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 5Hl Re: CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Dear Mr. Girling: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $220,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by ANR Pipeline Company, a wholly owned pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, 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, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise 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. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Ms. Sonya Kirby, Vice President, Safety, Quality & Compliance, TransCanada Corporation, 700 Louisiana, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 __________________________________________ In the Matter of ) ANR Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2016-1001 a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) FINAL ORDER On June 24-28, July 15-19, August 5-19, August 26-30, October 22-25, and December 2-6, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, and the Iowa Utilities Board conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ANR Pipeline Company (ANR or Respondent) in Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MI- PSC) also inspected ANR’s facilities in Michigan during several weeks in 2012. ANR’s system delivers natural gas from Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma to customers throughout the Midwest. It has approximately 10,600 miles of pipe and owns and operates four storage fields in Michigan with 64 billion cubic feet of capacity.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 28, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that ANR had committed 10 violations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 191, 192, and 199, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $220,200 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face future potential enforcement action. Respondent responded to the Notice by letters dated March 1, 2016 and June 20, 2016 (collectively, Response). ANR did not contest the allegations of violations, but presented information seeking modification of the proposed compliance order through a potential consent agreement; if were not possible, the company requested a hearing. By letter dated August 24, 2016, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing and thereby authorized the entry of this 1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Jan. 28, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 2 Final Order without further notice. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, ANR did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 191, 192, and 199, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, which states: § 191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents. (a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in §191.3. (b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made to the National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424- 8802 (in Washington, D.C., 202-267-2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil and must include the following information: (1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone numbers. (2) The location of the incident. (3) The time of the incident. (4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any. (5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages. The Notice also referenced 49 C.F.R. § 191.3, which states, in relevant part: § 191.3 Definitions. …. Incident means any of the following events: (1) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline, or of liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, refrigerant gas, or gas from an LNG facility, and that results in one or more of the following consequences: (i) A death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; (ii) Estimated property damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the operator and others, or both, but excluding cost of gas lost; (iii) Unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more; (2) An event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility. Activation of an emergency shutdown system for reasons other than an actual emergency does not constitute an incident. (3) An event that is significant in the judgment of the operator, even though it did not meet the criteria of paragraphs (1) or (2) of this definition. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a 2012 “incident,” as defined in § 191.3, that occurred at ANR’s#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 3 compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on July 13, 2012, an incident occurred at the Sandwich compressor station, but the company made no notification to the NRC. The property damage, excluding cost of any gas lost, was over $50,000. The incident involved a release of natural gas from a valve in the pipeline system into the silencer on Compressor Unit 1009 and the resulting ignition of gas. The released gas ignited at the silencer resulted in an uncontrolled burn that damaged the silencer and exhaust piping, and the silencer fell over and damaged the compressor building as well. Despite this damage to its pipeline facility caused by a natural gas fire, ANR did not contact the NRC. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to give notice to the NRC of a 2012 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, as quoted above, by failing to notify the NRC of another 2013 “incident,” as defined in § 191.3, that occurred at ANR’s compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, ANR experienced a second reportable incident at the Sandwich compressor station where the company made no notification to the NRC. The property damage, excluding the cost of lost gas, was over $50,000. The incident involved a release of natural gas when gas leaked past pressure and wiper packing of the compressor unit during maintenance of the unit. After leaking past the compressor packing, the natural gas entered the crankcase of the compressor unit. The leak into the crankcase (which is not a part of the pipeline system that moves gas in transportation) resulted in the ignition and explosion of the gas, causing substantial damage to equipment and the compressor building. Despite the damage to its pipeline facility caused by a natural gas explosion, ANR failed to contact the NRC. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5 by failing to give notice to the NRC of a 2013 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), which states: § 191.15 Transmission systems; gathering systems; and liquefied natural gas facilities; Incident report. (a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering pipeline system must submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident required to be reported under §191.5 of this part. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written report, as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ANR failed to submit#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 4 a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of the 2012 incident described in Item 1 above and that was required to be reported under § 191.5. Based on information provided by ANR during PHSMA’s 2013 inspection, the costs of this incident totaled over $200,000. According to ANR’s root cause analysis report provided during that same inspection, natural gas released from a valve in the pipeline system into the engine and silencer creating a combustible mixture in the silencer that ignited and resulted in an uncontrolled burning of gas at the silencer. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), as quoted above, by failing to submit a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ANR failed to submit a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of the 2013 incident described in Item 2 and that was required to be reported under §191.5. According to the Notice, the damage was significant and the total cost of the incident was $580,205. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written report to PHMSA as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8), which states in relevant part: § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. . . (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. . . (8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and modifying the procedure when deficiencies are found. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, it alleged that ANR failed to follow its written “walk-along” procedure throughout#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 5 the company to review the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures being used in normal operation and maintenance. According to the Notice, ANR was unable to provide sufficient records to the PHMSA inspectors demonstrating that the walk-along program was being used throughout the company. The MI-PSC inspections in 2012 also identified the same issue. ANR personnel indicated in 2012 and in 2013 that final procedures were still under development, but a form had been established and was being used during the interim period. ANR provided examples of the form that was being used in 2013 in Michigan and another one that was used in Wisconsin in 2011; however, there were no other records indicating that the walk-along program and forms were being used elsewhere on the ANR system. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states: § 192.603 General provisions. (a) … (b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605. The Notice also referenced § 192.605, which states, in relevant part: § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response . . . . (c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded: (1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of: (i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns; (ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating limits; (iii) Loss of communications; (iv) Operation of any safety device; and (v) Any other foreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or personnel error, which may result in a hazard to persons or property. . . . The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records to administer the procedures it had established under § 192.605. Specifically, it alleged that ANR failed to document the follow-up investigation of multiple abnormal operations that occurred on its pipeline system. A review of the company’s Incident and Issue Tracking (IIT) database#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 6 showed several instances when documentation of further investigation and corrective measures had not occurred. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IIT #237072 was for a leak of lube oil from a broken pressure gauge and IIT #255422 involved a pressure increase outside normal limits at ANR’s Rapid River Compressor Station. The IIT entries indicated that procedures were not completely effective in responding to the abnormal operations; however, no further documentation was provided to show what corrections, if any, had been made. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records to administer the procedures it had established under § 192.605. Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a-b), which states, in relevant part: § 192.625 Odorization of gas. (a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell. (b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a Class 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)of this section . . . The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a-b) by failing to odorize combustible gas in its transmission pipeline facilities in Wisconsin so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the gas was readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell. Specifically, the Notice alleged that for ANR’s odorized transmission- line facilities in Wisconsin, the company’s records did not demonstrate that the gas was odorized to the proper concentration level. According to the Notice, PHMSA’s review of the odorization records identified multiple locations where the readings taken did not meet the one-fifth gas-in-air (0.9%) of the lower explosive limit of natural gas (4.5% gas-in-air). On the Green Bay 350 line, the percent gas-in- air readings taken from November 2012 to July 2013 ranged from 1.06% to 1.29%. On the Green Bay 350-1 line, the readings taken from January 2013 to July 2013 varied from 1.11% to1.28%, and on the Green Bay 350-2 line, the readings ranged from 0.93% to 1.29% during the same time period. Finally, on the Oshkosh 1-355 line, the readings were all above 0.9% from May 2013 to September 2013. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a) by failing to odorize the natural gas in its transmission facilities in Wisconsin so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the gas was readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell. Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 7 § 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General. (a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat a pipeline at the pipe supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the Milan Tap and Meter Station in Michigan, ANR failed to clean and coat the pipeline at the pipe supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere. The MI-PSC field evaluation found atmospheric corrosion at these supports. The pipeline supports could not be lowered so ANR can properly inspect and address the pipe on the supports. As a result, actual metal loss from atmospheric corrosion was noted during MI- PSC’s field inspection. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat a pipeline at the pipe supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere. Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b), which states in relevant part: § 199.105 Drug tests required. Each operator shall conduct the following drug tests for the presence of a prohibited drug: (a) . . . (b) Post-accident testing. As soon as possible but no later than 32 hours after an accident, an operator shall drug test each employee whose performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. An operator may decide not to test under this paragraph but such a decision must be based on the best information available immediately after the accident that the employee’s performance could not have contributed to the accident or that, because of the time between that performance and the accident, it is not likely that a drug test would reveal whether the performance was affected by drug use. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b) by failing to administer post-accident drug tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, compressor unit #1009 in Sandwich, Illinois, experienced an explosion of natural gas in the crankcase that resulted in significant damage to the compressor unit and building. As mentioned above in Item 4, during maintenance of the compressor unit, a torch was utilized by an ANR employee to remove a seal. The Notice alleged that, based on the best information available immediately after the incident, it was not reasonable for the operator to make the decision that the employees’ performance could be completely discounted as a contributing factor. In fact, ANR’s subsequent root-cause analysis#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 9CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 8 confirmed that employee performance during the maintenance activity contributed to the incident. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b) by failing to administer post-accident drug tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the company’s compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1), which states in relevant part: § 199.225 Alcohol tests required. Each operator shall conduct the following types of alcohol tests for the presence of alcohol: (a) Post-accident. (1) As soon as practicable following an accident, each operator shall test each surviving covered employee for alcohol if that employee's performance of a covered function either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. The decision not to administer a test under this section shall be based on the operator’s determination, using the best available information at the time of the determination, that the covered employee’s performance could not have contributed to the accident. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1) by failing to administer post-accident alcohol tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, compressor unit #1009 in Sandwich, Illinois, experienced an explosion of natural gas in the crankcase that resulted in obviously significant damage to the compressor unit and building. The Notice alleged that during maintenance of the compressor unit, a torch had been utilized by an ANR employee to remove a seal. According to the Notice, based on the best information available immediately after the incident, it was not reasonable for the operator to make the decision that the employees’ performance could be completely discounted as a contributing factor. In fact, ANR’s subsequent root-cause analysis confirmed that employee performance during the maintenance activity contributed to the incident. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1) by failing to administer post-accident alcohol tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase- explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent.#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 10CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 9 ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $220,200 for the violations cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, for failing to notify the NRC of a 2012 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $47,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5. Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, for failing to notify the NRC of a 2013 incident that occurred at the ANR compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $47,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5. Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), for failing to submit a written report, as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days, after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $40,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a). Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $40,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), for failing to submit a written report, as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days, after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under § 191.5. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $40,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a). 2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 11CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 10 Item 10: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b), for failing to administer post-accident drug tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b). Item 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1), for failing to administer post-accident alcohol tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase-explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. ANR neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1). In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $220,200. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $220,200 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 191 and 192. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address some of the cited violations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 191.15(a) (Items 3 and 4), Respondent submitted the required 30-day written reports for the incidents that occurred on#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 122. 3. 4. CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 11 July 13, 2012, and August 9, 2013. OPS Central Region staff reviewed the two reports [Nos. 20160051 & 20160052], and the reports are now final in the Online Data Entry System (ODES) database, with no further action required. With respect to the violation of § 191.15(a) (Items 3 and 4), Respondent developed a plan to review all sources of data, including, but not limited to: ANR’s IIT database, root-cause analysis reports, unaccounted-for gas reports, leak databases, etc., and submitted required original and supplemental incident reports through ODES. Since the date of the Notice, ANR also reviewed events occurring on the ANR pipeline system between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2016, and determined that no other events required additional reporting under §§ 191.5 and 191.15. ANR submitted a listing of the 233 events in the June 2016 response. With the submission of such information, ANR has satisfied the terms of the proposed compliance order for these items. With respect to the violation of § 192.603(b) (Item 6), Respondent reviewed the database for abnormal operations that occurred on or after May 19, 2009, through May 31, 2016. The review found 460 abnormal-operation records for the ANR pipeline system. Of the 460 abnormal operations reviewed, 59 records had documented the corrective measures. Review of the 59 records found deficiencies for five records within the IIT database and two records within the Systems Applications Products database. These deficient records were updated to include proper documentation and pertinent information. ANR submitted the list of seven abnormal operations that required further documentation in its June 2016 response. ANR has therefore completed the proposed item and satisfied the terms of the proposed compliance order for this item. With respect to the violation of § 192.625 (Item 7), Respondent re-trained personnel taking odorant readings and completed the training on May 4, 2016. It submitted a copy of the training records to the Director with its June 2016 response. ANR has therefore completed the proposed item and satisfied the terms of the proposed compliance order for this item. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 3, 4, 6 and 7 are not included in this Order. As for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 5), Respondent must provide a detailed written procedure to address the periodic review of work done to determine the effectiveness of its operations and maintenance procedures. The procedure must encompass all aspects of the outline provided by ANR in its June 2016 response, with emphasis on how the review of the work will be accomplished#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 13CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 12 and thoroughly describe how the program will be documented. Respondent must submit the written program to the Director within 90 days of the issuance of the Final Order, implement the revised procedure within 180 days of the Final Order, and provide semi-annual reports to the Director on the results of the revised program for a period of one year from the implementation date. 2. With respect to the violation of § 192.479(a) (Item 8), Respondent must conduct an atmospheric-corrosion inspection of all meter stations in the Michigan operating area that have similar pipe supports, and submit a remedial action plan with a schedule and listing of facilities still requiring remediation to the Director for approval no later than 120 days after issuance of the Final Order. All required written submissions shall be sent to the attention of the Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106. It is requested (not mandated) that ANR Pipeline Company maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 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. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. WARNING ITEM With respect to Item 9, the Notice alleged a probable violation of § 192.736 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning item. The warning was for: 49 C.F.R. § 192.736(c) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain the gas detectors at the Bridgeman Compressor Station for units 1206 to 1209. ANR presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address the cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline#

320161001_Final Order_10242017_text.pdf, page 14CPF No. 3-2016-1001 Page 13 Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. October 24, 2017 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED January 28, 2016 Mr. Vern Meier Vice President, Field Operations ANR Pipeline Company / TransCanada 717 Texas Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 CPF 3-2016-1001 Dear Mr. Meier: On June 24-28, July 15-19, August 5-19, August 26-30, October 22-25, and December 2-6, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, and the Iowa Utilities Board, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected ANR Pipeline Company’s (ANR) records and procedures in Houston, Texas, and ANR facilities in Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MI PSC) inspected your records and facilities in Michigan during several weeks in 2012. 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 violation(s) are: In 2007, ANR Pipeline company became a wholly owned pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada.#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 21. §191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents. (a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in §191.3. (b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made to the National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424- 8802 (in Washington, D.C., 202-267-2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil and must include the following information: (1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone numbers. (2) The location of the incident. (3) The time of the incident. (4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any. (5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages. ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) did not give notice to the National Response Center of a 2012 incident as defined in §191.3 that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. 49 C.F.R. §191.3 defines “incident” as the following: (1) An event that involves a release of gas from a pipeline, or of liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, refrigerant gas, or gas from an LNG facility, and that results in one or more of the following consequences: (i) A death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization; (ii) Estimated property damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the operator and others, or both, but excluding cost of gas lost; (iii) Unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more; (2) An event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility. Activation of an emergency shutdown system for reasons other than an actual emergency does not constitute an incident. (3) An event that is significant in the judgment of the operator, even though it did not meet the criteria of paragraphs (1) or (2) of this definition. On July 13, 2012, an incident occurred at the Sandwich compressor station where no notification was made to the National Response Center (NRC). The property damage, excluding cost of any gas lost, was over $50,000. 2#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 32. The incident involved a release of natural gas from a part of the pipeline system and the resulting ignition of natural gas. Natural gas leaked from a valve in the pipeline system into the silencer, on Compressor Unit 1009. An ignition and uncontrolled burning of the gas occurred following the leak into the silencer, which is not a part of the pipeline system that moves gas in transportation. Released gas ignited at the silencer resulted in an uncontrolled burn that damaged the silencer and exhaust piping, and the silencer fell over and damaged the compressor building as well. Despite this damage to its pipeline facility caused by a natural gas fire, ANR did not contact the National Response Center as required. §191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents. (a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in §191.3. (b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section must be made to the National Response Center either by telephone to 800-424- 8802 (in Washington, D.C., 202-267-2675) or electronically at http://www.nrc.uscg.mil and must include the following information: (1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone numbers. (2) The location of the incident. (3) The time of the incident. (4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any. (5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages. ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) did not give notice to the National Response Center of a 2013 incident as defined in §191.3 that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. On August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, ANR experienced another incident at the Sandwich compressor station where no notification was made to the National Response Center (NRC). The property damage, excluding cost of lost gas, was over $50,000. The incident involved a release of natural gas when natural gas leaked past pressure and wiper packing of the compressor unit during maintenance of the unit. After leaking past the compressor packing, the natural gas entered the crankcase of the compressor unit. The leak into the crankcase, which is not a part of the pipeline 3#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 43. 4. system that moves gas in transportation, resulted in the ignition and explosion of the gas. The resultant explosion of released natural gas caused substantial damage to equipment and the compressor building. Despite the damage to its pipeline facility caused by a natural gas explosion, ANR did not contact the National Response Center as required. §191.15 Transmission systems, gathering systems, and liquefied natural gas facilities; Incident report. (a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering pipeline system must submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident required to be reported under §191.5 of this part. ANR did not submit a written report, as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident that was required to be reported under §191.5, for the Sandwich compressor station incident that occurred on July 13, 2012, as described in Item 1 above. Based on information provided by ANR during PHSMA’s 2013 inspection, the costs of this incident totaled over $200,000. According to ANR’s root cause analysis report provided during PHMSA’s 2013 inspection, natural gas released from a valve in the pipeline system into the engine and silencer creating a combustible mixture in the silencer that ignited and resulted in an uncontrolled burning of gas at the silencer. §191.15 Transmission systems, gathering systems, and liquefied natural gas facilities; Incident report. (a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering pipeline system must submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident required to be reported under §191.5 of this part. ANR did not submit a written report within 30-days for the Sandwich compressor station explosion that occurred on August 9, 2013, that was required to be reported under §191.5. This incident occurred during maintenance of the compressor unit as described in Item 2 above. The damage was significant and the total cost of the incident was $580,205. 4#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 5According to ANR’s root cause analysis report provided during PHMSA’s 2013 inspection, this incident involved natural gas that leaked past pressure and wiper packing of the pipeline system compressor into the crankcase. When maintenance personnel applied heat to a seal to facilitate its removal, the leak into the crankcase resulted in an ignition and explosion of the gas. The resultant explosion of released natural gas caused substantial damage to equipment and the compressor building. 5. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. (b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. (8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and modifying the procedure when deficiencies are found. ANR did not implement and follow its own “walk-along” procedure throughout the company to review the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures being used in normal operation and maintenance. During PHMSA’s review, ANR did not provide sufficient records to demonstrate that the walk-along program was being used throughout the company. The MI-PSC inspections in 2012 also identified the same issue. ANR personnel indicated in 2012 and in 2013 that final procedures were still under development, but a form had been established and was being used during the interim period. ANR provided examples of the form used in 2013 in Michigan and another used in Wisconsin in 2011; however, there were no other records indicating that the “walk along” program and forms were used elsewhere on the ANR system. 6. §192.603 General provisions (b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605. 5#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 6This states: §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies (c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded: (1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of: (i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns; (ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal operating limits; (iii) Loss of communications; (iv) Operation of any safety device; and, (v) Any other foreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from normal operation, or personnel error which may result in a hazard to persons or property. ANR did not document the follow-up investigation of multiple abnormal operations that occurred on the pipeline system. A review of the Incident and Issue Tracking (ITT) database showed instances when documentation of further investigation and corrective measures did not occur. Specifically, IIT #237072 was for a leak of lube oil from a broken pressure gauge, and IIT #255422 involved a pressure increase outside normal limits at the Rapid River Compressor station. The IIT entry indicated that procedures were not completely effective in responding to the abnormal operation; however, no further documentation was provided to show what corrections were made. 7. §192.625 Odorization of gas. a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell. (b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a Class 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section unless: 6#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 78. 9. For odorized transmission line facilities in Wisconsin, ANR’s records did not demonstrate that the natural gas was odorized to a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit as described in §192.625(a). Review of the odorization records identified multiple locations where the readings taken did not meet one-fifth gas-in-air (0.9%) of the lower explosive limit of natural gas (4.5% gas-in-air). On the Green Bay 350 line, the percent gas-in-air readings taken from 11/2012 to 7/2013 were 1.06% to 1.29%. On the Green Bay 350-1 line the readings taken from 1/2013 to 7/2013 varied from 1.11% to 1.28%, and on the Green Bay 350-2 line, the readings were from 0.93% to 1.29% during the same time period. Additionally, on the Oshkosh 1-355 line, the readings were all above 0.9% from 5/2013 to 9/2013. §192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control – General (a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. At the Milan Tap and Meter Station in Michigan, ANR did not clean and coat the pipeline at the supports where it was exposed to the atmosphere. The MI-PSC field evaluation found atmospheric corrosion at these supports. The pipeline supports could not be lowered so ANR can properly inspect and address the pipe on the supports. As a result, actual metal loss from atmospheric corrosion was noted during MI-PSC’s field inspection. §192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection. (c) Each gas detection and alarm system required by this section must be maintained to function properly. The maintenance must include performance tests. ANR did not maintain the gas detectors at the Bridgeman Compressor station for units 1206 to 1209. Review of the gas detection records found that the gas detectors for Units 1206 to 1209 were not being inspected. ANR documentation indicated that personnel were unable to access detectors for units 1206 to1209 for cleaning and malfunction testing. 7#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 810. §199.105 Drug tests required. Each operator shall conduct the following drug tests for the presence of a prohibited drug: (b) Post-accident testing. As soon as possible but no later than 32 hours after an accident, an operator shall drug test each employee whose performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. An operator may decide not to test under this paragraph but such a decision must be based on the best information available immediately after the accident that the employee's performance could not have contributed to the accident or that, because of the time between that performance and the accident, it is not likely that a drug test would reveal whether the performance was affected by drug use. ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) did not administer post-accident drug tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. On August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, compressor unit #1009 in Sandwich, Illinois, experienced an explosion of natural gas in the crankcase that resulted in obviously significant damage to the compressor unit and building. As mentioned above in Item 4, during maintenance of the compressor unit, a torch was utilized by an ANR employee to remove a seal. Based on the best information available immediately after the incident, it was not reasonable for the operator to make a decision that the employee’s performance could be completely discounted as a contributing factor. ANR’s Root Cause Analysis confirmed that employee performance during the maintenance activity contributed to the incident. 11. §199.225 Alcohol tests required. Each operator shall conduct the following types of alcohol tests for the presence of alcohol: (a) Post-accident. (1) As soon as practicable following an accident, each operator shall test each surviving covered employee for alcohol if that employee's performance of a covered function either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. The decision not to administer a test under this section shall be based on the operator's 8#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 9determination, using the best available information at the time of the determination, that the covered employee's performance could not have contributed to the accident. ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) did not administer post-accident alcohol tests to three employees involved in the August 2013 crankcase explosion incident that occurred at the compressor station in Sandwich, Illinois. On August 9, 2013, at 13:30 MDT, compressor unit #1009 in Sandwich, Illinois, Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, §60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed related series violinion pes othe violation persis up to a maniary 4,2012, the maxima elated series of violations. violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $220,200 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $47,500 2 $47,500 3 $40,300 4 $40,300 10 $22,300 11 $22,300 Warning Items With respect to item nine (9), we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action. 9#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 10Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), and eight (8) pursuant to 49 United States Code §60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to ANR Pipeline Company. 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 3-2016-1001 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 10#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 11PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to ANR Pipeline Company a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of ANR Pipeline Company with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In regard to Item Numbers 3 and 4 of the Notice pertaining to not submitting the written reports for the incidents that occurred on July 13, 2012, and August 9, 2013, ANR must submit the required reports through PHMSA’s Online Data Entry System (ODES) within 30 days of issuance of the Final Order, and notify the Central Region Director that the reports have been submitted to ODES. In regard to Item Numbers 3 and 4 of the Notice pertaining to not submitting reports for incidents occurring on the ANR pipeline system, ANR must develop a plan to review all sources of data, including but not limited to: the IIT database, root cause analysis reports, unaccounted for gas reports, leak databases, etc. and submit required original and supplemental reports through ODES within 180 days of issuance of the Final Order. The scope of the review shall be for all events occurring on or after January 1, 2010, through the date of issuance of the Final Order. In addition to submitting the reports through ODES, ANR shall provide to the Central Region Director a complete listing of all data and events that were reviewed indicating whether the event met the criteria for reporting (and why certain events did not meet criteria for reporting) including the date when the required reports were submitted to ODES. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to not implementing the “walk-along” program to meet the requirements of 192.605(b)(8), ANR must complete development of the program and procedures as needed, and begin implementation of the program throughout the ANR system. The written program must be submitted to the Central Region Director within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order, the implementation begun within 90 days of the Final Order, and a documentation of the program results submitted within 180 days of the Final Order. In regard to Item Number 6 of the notice pertaining to not documenting the results and follow-up of the abnormal operations in the IIT database, ANR must conduct a comprehensive review of the IIT database to identify deficient documentation and update the reports with all pertinent information. The review and update of the IIT database must be completed no later than 180 days after issuance of the Final Order, and written documentation demonstrating compliance submitted to the Central Region Director within 30 days of completing the review and update. In regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to deficient odorant readings, ANR must re-train personnel taking the readings and submit a copy of the training records to the Central Region Director within 180 days of issuance of the Final Order. 11#

320161001_NOPV PCP PCO_01282016_text.pdf, page 126. 7. 8. In regard to Item Number 8 of the Notice pertaining to atmospheric corrosion of the pipe at the Milan Tap and Meter Station, ANR must complete remedial action and submit documentation to the Central Region Director within 30 days of issuance of the Final Order. Additionally, within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order ANR must conduct an atmospheric inspection of all meter stations in the Michigan operating area that have similar supports, and submit a remedial action plan with a schedule and listing of facilities requiring remediation to the Central Region Director for approval no later than 120 days after issuance of the Final Order. For Items 1 through 6 of this compliance order, all required written submissions shall be sent to the attention of Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, at 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106. It is requested (not mandated) that ANR Pipeline Company maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central 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. 12#

320161001_Closure Letter_08012019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 1, 2019 Mr. Stanley Chapman Executive Vice President & President, US Pipelines ANR Pipeline Company 700 Louisiana Street Suite 700 Houston, TX, 77002 CPF 3-2016-1001 Dear Mr. Chapman: On October 24, 2017, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to ANR Pipeline Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#