# ANR PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320181001_Final Order_05162019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_Final%20Order_05162019.pdf

320181001_Final Order_05162019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_Final%20Order_05162019_text.pdf

320181001_NOPV PCP PCO_04242018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242018.pdf

320181001_NOPV PCP PCO_04242018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242018_text.pdf

320181001_Operator Response to Notice_07232018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320181001/320181001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07232018.pdf

320181001_NOPV PCP PCO_04242018_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 24, 2018
Mr. Stanley Chapman
Senior Vice President and General Manager
ANR Pipeline Company / TransCanada
700 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 3-2018-1001
Dear Mr. Chapman:
On July 26-28, August 2-4, and August 23-25, 2016, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected your records and
facilities in Indiana and part of Illinois.
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 (CFR). The items
inspected and the probable violations are:
1. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
(a) . . .
(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of this
subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation and
maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response or



planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that
meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include officials on a local
emergency planning commission or relevant Native American tribal officials.
ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) failed to identify and did not incorporate a High Consequence
Area (HCA) into their Integrity Management Program. Specifically, ANR did not identify a
high consequence area (HCA) on the Pete Dye Golf Course in West Baden Springs, Indiana
until July 2016. The identified site in the Celestine Unit has been in operation since 2009.
On June 22, 2016, ANR submitted a Safety Related Condition Report in a location that was
classified as a non-HCA. After the SRCR submittal, ANR realized that the SRC was in an
HCA. ANR contacted PHMSA by phone to alert them to this misidentification. This
coincided with a previously scheduled field visit in the area of the SRC and PHMSA inspectors
included this location with the field inspection. ANR’s Baseline Assessment & Reassessment
Plan (BARP) from 2016 did not reflect the identified HCA. ANR indicated that the BARP
would be updated to reflect the new HCA. As a result, ANR identified the issues that led to
this misidentification including evaluation of the contractor’s performance, reanalysis of
locations on the ANR pipeline corridor, and the modification of procedures to prevent a similar
event from occurring in the future.
2. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
(a) . . .
(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the area around a
pipeline segment not previously identified as a high consequence area could
satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the operator must complete the
evaluation using method (1) or (2). If the segment is determined to meet the
definition as a high consequence area, it must be incorporated into the
operator's baseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year
from the date the area is identified.
ANR failed to incorporate into its baseline assessment plan within one year from the date a
segment determined to meet the definition as a high consequence area was identified.
Specifically, ANR did not incorporate a newly identified HCA (MP 858 to 858.3 Mainline
Loop 1-100 St. John to Bridgman – Calumet Pipeline, Indiana) into its BARP within one year
from the date the area was identified.
The newly identified HCA was discovered on April 15, 2015 using Method 2, and should have
been in the 2016 BARP. OPS reviewed the 2016 BARP and discovered that newly identified
HCA (MP 858 to 858.3 Mainline Loop 1-100 St. John to Bridgman – Calumet Pipeline,
Indiana) was not in the 2016 BARP list. In addition, TEP-US-GAS-HCA-IMP US Gas HCA
Integrity Management Processes, Rev. 00, effective February 8, 2014, states in section 5.3.7:
“New covered segments are included in the baseline assessment plan within one year of
2



identification”. The February 8, 2014 procedure was in effect during the time of the newly
discovered HCA.
3. §192.709 Transmission lines: Record-keeping
Each operator shall maintain the following records for transmission line for the periods
specified:
(a) . . .
(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and M of
this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey,
inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.
ANR failed to retain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection and test required by subparts L
and M of Part 192 for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is
completed, whichever is longer. Subparts L and M of Part 195 require odorization checks and
overpressure protection inspections. Specifically, ANR did not maintain records for the
odorization checks in the St. John, Indiana, operating area and also did not maintain records for
overpressure protection at the Alliance interconnect.
ANR relies on a third party for odorization at the Crown Point interconnect on Line 1-100 at
MP 861.36, which is a Class 3 location in the St. John area. ANR was unable to produce any
odorization records during the field inspection to show that the line was adequately odorized.
During a final meeting in October 26, 2016, ANR provided odorization records from the third
party for 2013 through February 2016. However, no process was established to receive and
review odorization records going forward. Additionally, ANR relies on a separate third party
for overpressure protection at the Alliance interconnect. ANR was unable to provide any
records for the required time period verifying the over-pressure protection device was
inspected. Furthermore, it was identified that ANR does not have a process to ensure a third
party’s qualification and the receiving and maintaining of those records.
Proposed Civil Penalty
As of April 27, 2017, under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a
maximum of $2,090,022 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has
reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable
violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,600
as follows:
Item number
1
2
Penalty
$15,500
$31,100
3



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item three (3) 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).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request
a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. 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. If you are responding to this Notice,
we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of
this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2018-1001 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 Enforcement Proceedings
4



PROPOSED 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 (ANR) with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to ANR’s failure to maintain
odorization records and inspection records of the overpressure protection device at the
Alliance interconnect, ANR must identify all locations within the St. John operating area
that are being odorized by a third party and document the completion of all odorization
testing requirements. ANR must also document the testing and maintaining of the over-
pressure protection devices on ANR pipe whether performed directly by ANR personnel or
performed on ANR's behalf pursuant to an agreement. ANR must maintain such
documentation for the period specified in the pipeline safety regulations. Any required
inspection and testing performed by another entity pursuant to an agreement must be
performed by qualified personnel and copies of the records must be maintained by ANR.
Alternatively, ANR may install overpressure protection device(s) at the interconnect and
begin performing the necessary inspection and testing. ANR may also do the same with the
odorization equipment. A plan to accomplish this Item must be submitted to PHMSA
within 30 days of issuance of the Final Order for approval by the Director, Central Region.
ANR must complete necessary actions as delineated in the approved plan within 60 days of
the Director's approval.
It is requested (not mandated) that ANR 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.
5

320181001_Final Order_05162019_text.pdf

May 16, 2019
Mr. Russell K. Girling
President and CEO
TransCanada Corporation
450 – 1 Street SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 5H1
Re: CPF No. 3-2018-1001
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 $46,600. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of
the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated August 8, 2018. It further finds that your
subsidiary, ANR Pipeline Company, has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply
with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service
of the Final Order by certified mail is 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 Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Stanley Chapman, Senior Vice President and General Manager, TransCanada
Corporation, 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002
Mr. Lee Romack, Manager, U.S. Regulatory Compliance, TransCanada Corporation, 700
Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.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. 3-2018-1001
a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From July 26 through August 25, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ANR
Pipeline Company (ANR or Respondent), a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation
(TransCanada), in Indiana and Illinois, more specifically the St. John, Celestine, LaGrange, and
Sulphur Springs units of the ANR Pipeline. The ANR Pipeline transports natural gas from
Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana to cities and towns in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.1
The ANR Pipeline is approximately 10,600 miles in length and has a capacity of more than six
billion cubic feet of natural gas.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated April 24, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that ANR had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905(b)(1), 192.905(c) and 192.709(c)
and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,600 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice
also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, TransCanada responded to the
Notice on behalf of ANR by letter, dated July 23, 2018 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective actions
ANR had taken. The company also paid the proposed penalty of $46,600 by wire transfer, dated
August 8, 2018. In accordance with § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate
Administrator to make findings of violation and to issue this Final Order without further
proceedings.
1 TransCanada ANR Pipeline site, available at www.transcanada.com/en/operations/natural-gas-anr-pipeline (last
accessed Feb. 27, 2019).
2 Id.



CPF 3-2018-1001
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, ANR did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1), which states:
§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
(a) . . . .
(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for
purposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from
routine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with
safety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to
the operator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria.
These public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning
commission or relevant Native American tribal officials.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to identify an
identified site, for purposes of Subpart O, from information the operator obtained from routine
operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response
or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that meet the
identified site criteria. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ANR failed to identify a High
Consequence Area (HCA) around the ANR Pipeline’s Celestine Unit near French Lick, Indiana,
at the Pete Dye Golf Course. The Notice alleged that ANR failed to incorporate this HCA into
its Integrity Management Program until seven years after the pipeline had been in operation at
that site.
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. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to identify
an identified site, for purposes of Subpart O, from information the operator obtained from routine
operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency response
or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of locations that meet the
identified site criteria.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c), which states:
§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?
(a) . . . .
(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the
area around a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high
consequence area could satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903, the
operator must complete the evaluation using method (1) or (2). If the
segment is determined to meet the definition as a high consequence area, it
must be incorporated into the operator's baseline assessment plan as a high
consequence area within one year from the date the area is identified.



CPF 3-2018-1001
Page 3
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c) by failing to complete an
evaluation to identify a HCA using method (1) or (2) from the definition of “High Consequence
Area” contained in § 192.903 when the operator had information that the area around a pipeline
segment not previously identified as an HCA could satisfy any of the definitions in § 192.903,
and by failing to incorporate an identified HCA in the operator’s baseline assessment plan as an
HCA within one year from the date the area was identified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
ANR failed to incorporate a newly-identified HCA, i.e., the area starting at milepost 858 and
extending to milepost 858.3 along the ANR Pipeline Mainline Loop, into its baseline assessment
plan within one year from the date the HCA was identified by the company.
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. § 192.905(c) by failing to incorporate
an identified HCA in the operator’s baseline assessment plan within one year from the date the
area was identified.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:
§ 192.709 Transmission Lines: Record keeping.
Each operator shall maintain the following records for transmission
lines for the periods specified:
(a) . . . .
(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by
subparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until
the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to retain a record
of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by Subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least
five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that ANR did not retain records of odorization testing at the
Crown Point interconnect on the ANR Pipeline from 2013 through 2016. Additionally, the
Notice alleged that ANR failed to retain any records regarding overpressure-protection
inspections at the Alliance interconnect on the ANR Pipeline.
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. § 192.709(c) by failing to retain a
record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by Subparts L and M of Part 192 for
at least five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is
longer.
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



CPF 3-2018-1001
Page 4
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; 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 $46,600 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.
§ 192.905(b)(1), for failing to identify an identified site, for purposes of Subpart O, from
information the operator obtained from routine operation and maintenance activities and from
public officials with safety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicated to
the operator that they knew of locations that met the identified-site criteria. ANR neither
contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.905(b)(1).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.905(c), for failing to incorporate an identified HCA into ANR’s baseline assessment plan
within one year from the date the area was identified. ANR neither contested the allegation nor
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $31,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c).
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 $46,600, which amount was paid
in full by wire transfer dated August 8, 2018.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 3 in the Notice for a violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c). 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 indicates that
Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.709(c) (Item 3), Respondent has instituted
work orders in its Work Management System requiring operating personnel to create
and maintain the required compliance records at the subject locations annually.
Respondent has also instituted ongoing work orders to witness the required tests and
3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,
83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).



CPF 3-2018-1001
Page 5
inspections whenever they can be coordinated with third-party operators.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
This enforcement action is now closed. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are
effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
May 16, 2019
___________________________________ _________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 25357