{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320181001","title":"ANR PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-04-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.709(c), 192.905(b)(1), 192.905(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320181001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320181001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320181001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320181001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ANR PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.709(c),  192.905(b)(1),  192.905(c). The case was opened on 2018-04-24 and is reported as closed as of 2019-05-16. Proposed civil penalty: $46,600. Assessed civil penalty: $46,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320181001_Final Order_05162019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_Final%20Order_05162019.pdf\n\n320181001_Final Order_05162019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_Final%20Order_05162019_text.pdf\n\n320181001_NOPV PCP PCO_04242018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242018.pdf\n\n320181001_NOPV PCP PCO_04242018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242018_text.pdf\n\n320181001_Operator Response to Notice_07232018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07232018.pdf\n\n320181001_NOPV PCP PCO_04242018_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 24, 2018\nMr. Stanley Chapman\nSenior Vice President and General Manager\nANR Pipeline Company / TransCanada\n700 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 3-2018-1001\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nOn July 26-28, August 2-4, and August 23-25, 2016, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected your records and\nfacilities in Indiana and part of Illinois.\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 (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) . . .\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of this\nsubpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation and\nmaintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response or\n\n\n\nplanning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that\nmeet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include officials on a local\nemergency planning commission or relevant Native American tribal officials.\nANR Pipeline Company (ANR) failed to identify and did not incorporate a High Consequence\nArea (HCA) into their Integrity Management Program. Specifically, ANR did not identify a\nhigh consequence area (HCA) on the Pete Dye Golf Course in West Baden Springs, Indiana\nuntil July 2016. The identified site in the Celestine Unit has been in operation since 2009.\nOn June 22, 2016, ANR submitted a Safety Related Condition Report in a location that was\nclassified as a non-HCA. After the SRCR submittal, ANR realized that the SRC was in an\nHCA. ANR contacted PHMSA by phone to alert them to this misidentification. This\ncoincided with a previously scheduled field visit in the area of the SRC and PHMSA inspectors\nincluded this location with the field inspection. ANR’s Baseline Assessment & Reassessment\nPlan (BARP) from 2016 did not reflect the identified HCA. ANR indicated that the BARP\nwould be updated to reflect the new HCA. As a result, ANR identified the issues that led to\nthis misidentification including evaluation of the contractor’s performance, reanalysis of\nlocations on the ANR pipeline corridor, and the modification of procedures to prevent a similar\nevent from occurring in the future.\n2. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) . . .\n(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the area around a\npipeline segment not previously identified as a high consequence area could\nsatisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the operator must complete the\nevaluation using method (1) or (2). If the segment is determined to meet the\ndefinition as a high consequence area, it must be incorporated into the\noperator's baseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year\nfrom the date the area is identified.\nANR failed to incorporate into its baseline assessment plan within one year from the date a\nsegment determined to meet the definition as a high consequence area was identified.\nSpecifically, ANR did not incorporate a newly identified HCA (MP 858 to 858.3 Mainline\nLoop 1-100 St. John to Bridgman – Calumet Pipeline, Indiana) into its BARP within one year\nfrom the date the area was identified.\nThe newly identified HCA was discovered on April 15, 2015 using Method 2, and should have\nbeen in the 2016 BARP. OPS reviewed the 2016 BARP and discovered that newly identified\nHCA (MP 858 to 858.3 Mainline Loop 1-100 St. John to Bridgman – Calumet Pipeline,\nIndiana) was not in the 2016 BARP list. In addition, TEP-US-GAS-HCA-IMP US Gas HCA\nIntegrity Management Processes, Rev. 00, effective February 8, 2014, states in section 5.3.7:\n“New covered segments are included in the baseline assessment plan within one year of\n2\n\n\n\nidentification”. The February 8, 2014 procedure was in effect during the time of the newly\ndiscovered HCA.\n3. §192.709 Transmission lines: Record-keeping\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission line for the periods\nspecified:\n(a) . . .\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and M of\nthis part must be retained for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nANR failed to retain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection and test required by subparts L\nand M of Part 192 for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is\ncompleted, whichever is longer. Subparts L and M of Part 195 require odorization checks and\noverpressure protection inspections. Specifically, ANR did not maintain records for the\nodorization checks in the St. John, Indiana, operating area and also did not maintain records for\noverpressure protection at the Alliance interconnect.\nANR relies on a third party for odorization at the Crown Point interconnect on Line 1-100 at\nMP 861.36, which is a Class 3 location in the St. John area. ANR was unable to produce any\nodorization records during the field inspection to show that the line was adequately odorized.\nDuring a final meeting in October 26, 2016, ANR provided odorization records from the third\nparty for 2013 through February 2016. However, no process was established to receive and\nreview odorization records going forward. Additionally, ANR relies on a separate third party\nfor overpressure protection at the Alliance interconnect. ANR was unable to provide any\nrecords for the required time period verifying the over-pressure protection device was\ninspected. Furthermore, it was identified that ANR does not have a process to ensure a third\nparty’s qualification and the receiving and maintaining of those records.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nAs of April 27, 2017, under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a\ncivil penalty not to exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a\nmaximum of $2,090,022 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,600\nas follows:\nItem number\n1\n2\nPenalty\n$15,500\n$31,100\n3\n\n\n\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item three (3) pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to ANR\nPipeline Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and\nmade a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice,\nwe propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of\nthis Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2018-1001 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to ANR Pipeline Company a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of ANR Pipeline\nCompany (ANR) with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to ANR’s failure to maintain\nodorization records and inspection records of the overpressure protection device at the\nAlliance interconnect, ANR must identify all locations within the St. John operating area\nthat are being odorized by a third party and document the completion of all odorization\ntesting requirements. ANR must also document the testing and maintaining of the over-\npressure protection devices on ANR pipe whether performed directly by ANR personnel or\nperformed on ANR's behalf pursuant to an agreement. ANR must maintain such\ndocumentation for the period specified in the pipeline safety regulations. Any required\ninspection and testing performed by another entity pursuant to an agreement must be\nperformed by qualified personnel and copies of the records must be maintained by ANR.\nAlternatively, ANR may install overpressure protection device(s) at the interconnect and\nbegin performing the necessary inspection and testing. ANR may also do the same with the\nodorization equipment. A plan to accomplish this Item must be submitted to PHMSA\nwithin 30 days of issuance of the Final Order for approval by the Director, Central Region.\nANR must complete necessary actions as delineated in the approved plan within 60 days of\nthe Director's approval.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that ANR maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Allan C.\nBeshore, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\nIt is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n320181001_Final Order_05162019_text.pdf\n\nMay 16, 2019\nMr. Russell K. Girling\nPresident and CEO\nTransCanada Corporation\n450 – 1 Street SW\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 5H1\nRe: CPF No. 3-2018-1001\nDear Mr. Girling:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $46,600. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated August 8, 2018. It further finds that your\nsubsidiary, ANR Pipeline Company, has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is effective as provided 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 Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Stanley Chapman, Senior Vice President and General Manager, TransCanada\nCorporation, 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002\nMr. Lee Romack, Manager, U.S. Regulatory Compliance, TransCanada Corporation, 700\nLouisiana Street, Houston, Texas 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. 3-2018-1001\na subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom July 26 through August 25, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ANR\nPipeline Company (ANR or Respondent), a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation\n(TransCanada), in Indiana and Illinois, more specifically the St. John, Celestine, LaGrange, and\nSulphur Springs units of the ANR Pipeline. The ANR Pipeline transports natural gas from\nTexas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana to cities and towns in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.1\nThe ANR Pipeline is approximately 10,600 miles in length and has a capacity of more than six\nbillion cubic feet of natural gas.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 24, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that ANR had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905(b)(1), 192.905(c) and 192.709(c)\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,600 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, TransCanada responded to the\nNotice on behalf of ANR by letter, dated July 23, 2018 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective actions\nANR had taken. The company also paid the proposed penalty of $46,600 by wire transfer, dated\nAugust 8, 2018. In accordance with § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator to make findings of violation and to issue this Final Order without further\nproceedings.\n1 TransCanada ANR Pipeline site, available at www.transcanada.com/en/operations/natural-gas-anr-pipeline (last\naccessed Feb. 27, 2019).\n2 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1001\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ANR did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1), which states:\n§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) . . . .\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for\npurposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from\nroutine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with\nsafety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to\nthe operator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria.\nThese public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning\ncommission or relevant Native American tribal officials.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to identify an\nidentified site, for purposes of Subpart O, from information the operator obtained from routine\noperation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response\nor planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that meet the\nidentified site criteria. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ANR failed to identify a High\nConsequence Area (HCA) around the ANR Pipeline’s Celestine Unit near French Lick, Indiana,\nat the Pete Dye Golf Course. The Notice alleged that ANR failed to incorporate this HCA into\nits Integrity Management Program until seven years after the pipeline had been in operation at\nthat site.\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. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to identify\nan identified site, for purposes of Subpart O, from information the operator obtained from routine\noperation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response\nor planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that meet the\nidentified site criteria.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c), which states:\n§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the\narea around a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high\nconsequence area could satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the\noperator must complete the evaluation using method (1) or (2). If the\nsegment is determined to meet the definition as a high consequence area, it\nmust be incorporated into the operator's baseline assessment plan as a high\nconsequence area within one year from the date the area is identified.\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1001\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c) by failing to complete an\nevaluation to identify a HCA using method (1) or (2) from the definition of “High Consequence\nArea” contained in § 192.903 when the operator had information that the area around a pipeline\nsegment not previously identified as an HCA could satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903,\nand by failing to incorporate an identified HCA in the operator’s baseline assessment plan as an\nHCA within one year from the date the area was identified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nANR failed to incorporate a newly-identified HCA, i.e., the area starting at milepost 858 and\nextending to milepost 858.3 along the ANR Pipeline Mainline Loop, into its baseline assessment\nplan within one year from the date the HCA was identified by the company.\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. § 192.905(c) by failing to incorporate\nan identified HCA in the operator’s baseline assessment plan within one year from the date the\narea was identified.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission Lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission\nlines for the periods specified:\n(a) . . . .\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by\nsubparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until\nthe next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to retain a record\nof each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by Subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least\nfive years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that ANR did not retain records of odorization testing at the\nCrown Point interconnect on the ANR Pipeline from 2013 through 2016. Additionally, the\nNotice alleged that ANR failed to retain any records regarding overpressure-protection\ninspections at the Alliance interconnect on the ANR Pipeline.\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. § 192.709(c) by failing to retain a\nrecord of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by Subparts L and M of Part 192 for\nat least five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1001\nPage 4\nrelated series of violations.3 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $46,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.905(b)(1), for failing to identify an identified site, for purposes of Subpart O, from\ninformation the operator obtained from routine operation and maintenance activities and from\npublic officials with safety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicated to\nthe operator that they knew of locations that met the identified-site criteria. ANR neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.905(b)(1).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.905(c), for failing to incorporate an identified HCA into ANR’s baseline assessment plan\nwithin one year from the date the area was identified. ANR neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $31,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c).\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 $46,600, which amount was paid\nin full by wire transfer dated August 8, 2018.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 3 in the Notice for a violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.709(c) (Item 3), Respondent has instituted\nwork orders in its Work Management System requiring operating personnel to create\nand maintain the required compliance records at the subject locations annually.\nRespondent has also instituted ongoing work orders to witness the required tests and\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,\n83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF 3-2018-1001\nPage 5\ninspections whenever they can be coordinated with third-party operators.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nThis enforcement action is now closed. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 16, 2019\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":25357}