GREAT LAKES GAS TRANSMISSION CO — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF320171007_NOPV PCP_05112017.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF320171007_NOPV PCP_05112017_text.pdf#

320171007_Final Order_11172017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNovember 17, 2017 Mr. Russell Girling President & CEO TransCanada Corporation 450-1 Street SW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 5H1 Re: CPF No. 3-2017-1007 Dear Mr. Girling: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $56,900 against your subsidiary, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated June 5, 2017. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final Order is deemed effective as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Lee Romack, Manager, U.S. Regulatory Compliance, TransCanada, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. Stanley Chapman, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company, 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320171007_Final Order_11172017_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 ) ) Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company, ) a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, ) CPF No. 3-2017-1007 ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) FINAL ORDER Beginning on January 22, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MIPSC) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an inspection of a safety- related condition report filed by Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company (GLGT or Respondent) on January 21, 2016. The safety-related condition report regarded GLGT’s Line 200 near Crystal Falls in Iron County, Michigan. GLGT, a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation,1 transports over 2.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas through 2,115 miles of pipeline per day.2 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 11, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that GLGT had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 191.25 and 192.933 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $56,900 for the alleged violations. TransCanada Corporation responded to the Notice on behalf of GLGT by email on May 25, 2017 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $56,900 by wire transfer dated June 5, 2017. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate Administrator to make findings of violation and to issue this Final Order. 1 http://www.tcpipelineslp.com/great-lakes-transmission html (last accessed August 14, 2017). 2 http://www.glgt.com/1_frame htm (last accessed August 14, 2017).#

320171007_Final Order_11172017_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2017-1007 Page 2 FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, GLGT did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191 and Part 192, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.25(a), which states: § 191.25 Filing safety-related condition reports. (a) Each report of a safety-related condition under § 191.23(a) must be filed (received by OPS within five working days, not including Saturday, Sunday, or Federal Holidays) after the day a representative of the operator first determines that the condition exists, but not later than 10 working days after the day a representative of the operator discovers the condition. Separate conditions may be described in a single report if they are closely related. Reports may be transmitted by electronic mail to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov or by facsimile at (202) 366-7128. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.25(a) by failing to report a safety- related condition to OPS not later than 10 working days after the day a representative of the operator discovered the condition. Specifically, the Notice alleged that GLGT discovered a safety-related condition on October 21, 2015, but did not report the condition to OPS until January 21, 2016, which was 61 working days after the date of discovery. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.25(a) by failing to report a safety- related condition not later than 10 working days after the day a representative of the operator discovered the condition. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(d)(1)(ii), which states: § 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues? (a) . . . . (d) Special requirements for scheduling remediation—(1) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule must follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 7 in providing for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator must temporarily reduce operating pressure in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section or shut down the pipeline until the operator completes the repair of these conditions. An operator must treat the following conditions as immediate repair conditions: (i) . . . . (ii) A dent that has any indication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(d)(1)(ii) by failing to#

320171007_Final Order_11172017_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2017-1007 Page 3 temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down Line 200 until GLGT completed the repair of two immediate-repair conditions discovered on the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent received an ILI vendor’s final report on October 21, 2015, that identified two dents with metal loss in a “High Consequence Area” along Line 200. After discovering these immediate repair conditions, GLGT did not isolate the pipeline until January 14, 2016, and did not reduce the pressure on the line until January 15, 2016, approximately 86 days after the conditions were discovered. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(d)(1)(ii) by failing to temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down Line 200 until GLGT completed the repair of two immediate-repair conditions. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. 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.3 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 $56,900 for the violations cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.25(a), for failing to report a safety-related condition to OPS within 10 working days after the day that a GLGT representative discovered the condition. GLGT 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 $15,500 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.25(a). Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(d)(1)(ii), for failing to temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down Line 200 until GLGT completed the repair of two immediate-repair conditions discovered on the pipeline. GLGT neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination or reduction of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and 3 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).#

320171007_Final Order_11172017_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 3-2017-1007 Page 4 considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $41,400 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(d)(1)(ii). In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Items cited above, I assess the respondent a total civil penalty of $56,900, which amount was paid in full by Respondent on June 5, 2017. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. November 17, 2017 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#