# DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY - LIQUID — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 220186002  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2018-05-15

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.1(a), 195.402(a), 195.446(a), 195.446(j)(1), 195.452(b)(5), 195.452(f), 195.452(j)(5), 195.452(l)(1)(ii), 195.49, 195.573(a)(1), 195.588(b)(1), 195.589(c).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY - LIQUID. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.1(a),  195.402(a),  195.446(a),  195.446(j)(1),  195.452(b)(5),  195.452(f),  195.452(j)(5),  195.452(l)(1)(ii),  195.49,  195.573(a)(1),  195.588(b)(1),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2018-05-15 and is reported as closed as of 2019-04-25. Proposed civil penalty: $55,700. Assessed civil penalty: $55,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

220186002_Closure Letter_04252019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Closure%20Letter_04252019.pdf

220186002_Closure Letter_04252019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Closure%20Letter_04252019_text.pdf

220186002_Final Order_02042019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Final%20Order_02042019.pdf

220186002_Final Order_02042019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Final%20Order_02042019_text.pdf

220186002_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05152018.pdf

220186002_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05152018_text.pdf

220186002_Operator Response to Notice_06082018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06082018.pdf

220186002_Final Order_02042019_text.pdf

February 4, 2019
Ms. Lynn J. Good
Chairman, President, and CEO
Duke Energy Corporation
139 East Fourth Street, Mail Drop EX403
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Re: CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Dear Ms. Good:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $55,700,
and specifies actions that need to be taken by Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., to comply with the
pipeline safety regulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty
amount, by wire transfer, dated June 12, 2018. When the terms of the compliance order have
been completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, 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. James A. Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Victor Gaglio, Senior VP & Chief Operations Officer Natural Gas, Duke Energy
Corporation
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 )
Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., ) CPF No. 2-2018-6002
a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between July 31 and September 21, 2017, 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 of Duke Energy
Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy or Respondent), in Kenton County, Kentucky, and the records of
Duke Energy in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Erlanger, Kentucky. Duke Energy is a subsidiary of Duke
Energy Corporation, which conducts natural gas transmission and distribution operations in the
Carolinas, Tennessee, southwestern Ohio and Northern Kentucky.1 In addition, Respondent
operates a 2.91-mile 8-inch Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) pipeline in Kenton County,
Kentucky.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated May 15, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to
49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Duke Energy had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $55,700 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the other two alleged violations. The warning
items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or
face possible future enforcement action.
Duke Energy responded to the Notice by letter dated June 8, 2018 (Response). The company did
not contest the allegations of violation, paid the proposed civil penalty of $55,700, and agreed to
complete the proposed compliance actions. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1),
payment of the penalty authorizes the Associate Administrator to make findings of violation and
to issue this final order without further proceedings. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore has waived its right to one.
1 Duke Energy 2017 Annual Report, available at https://www.duke-energy.com/annual-report/ /media/pdfs/our-
company/investors/de-annual-reports/2017/2017annualreport.pdf (last accessed September 26, 2018).
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 22, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Duke Energy did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49
C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.1(a), which states:
§ 195.1 Which pipelines are covered by this Part?
(a) Covered. Except for the pipelines listed in paragraph (b) of this
Section, this Part applies to pipeline facilities and the transportation of
hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide associated with those facilities in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, including pipeline facilities on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Covered pipelines include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Any pipeline that transports a highly volatile liquid;
(2) Any pipeline segment that crosses a waterway currently used for
commercial navigation;
(3) Except for a gathering line not covered by paragraph (a)(4) of this
Section, any pipeline located in a rural or non-rural area of any diameter
regardless of operating pressure;
(4) Any of the following onshore gathering lines used for transportation
of petroleum:
(i) A pipeline located in a non-rural area;
(ii) A regulated rural gathering line as provided in § 195.11; or
(iii) A pipeline located in an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico as provided in
§ 195.413.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.1(a) by failing to apply Part 195 to
certain covered pipelines. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Duke Energy failed to incorporate
its Constance Cavern Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Storage Facility (Constance Cavern) into all
relevant portions of Duke Energy’s hazardous liquid pipeline safety program.
The term “Pipeline or pipeline system” is defined in § 195.2 as:
[A]ll parts of a pipeline facility through which a hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide moves in transportation, including, but not limited to, line
pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to line pipe, pumping
units, fabricated assemblies associated with pumping units, metering and
delivery stations and fabricated assemblies therein, and breakout tanks.
Furthermore, “pipeline facility” is defined in § 195.2 as "new and existing pipe, rights-of-way
and any equipment, facility, or building used in the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon
dioxide." Duke Energy’s Constance Cavern meets the definition of “pipeline facility” because
the submerged pumps and appurtenances within the cavern transfer LPG out of the storage
cavern to a bi-directional pipeline for transport downstream (relative to the cavern) to the
company’s Erlanger plant. Additionally, Constance Cavern receives LPG from the same bi-
directional pipeline via trucking injection at the Erlanger plant. Therefore, Constance Cavern is
covered by Part 195.



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 3
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. § 195.1(a) by failing to apply Part 195
to certain covered pipelines.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility
with a controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all
or part of a pipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must
have and follow written control room management procedures that
implement the requirements of this section. The procedures required by this
section must be integrated, as appropriate, with the operator's written
procedures required by § 195.402. An operator must develop the
procedures no later than August 1, 2011, and must implement the
procedures according to the following schedule. The procedures required
by paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must
be implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by
paragraphs (c)(l) through (4), (d)(l), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no
later than August 1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph
(h) must be implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any
training required by another paragraph of this section must be implemented
no later than the deadline for that paragraph.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and
follow written control room management (CRM) procedures that implement the requirements of
§ 195.446. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Duke Energy did not have CRM procedures
because it failed to identify its Erlanger air-propane plant office (Erlanger office) as a control
room. The term “Control room” is defined in § 195.2 as “an operations center staffed by
personnel charged with the responsibility for remotely monitoring and controlling a pipeline
facility." The term “Controller” is defined in § 195.2 as "a qualified individual who remotely
monitors and controls the safety-related operations of a pipeline facility via a SCADA system
from a control room, and who has operational authority and accountability for the remote
operational functions of the pipeline facility.”
During the inspection, PHMSA inspectors interviewed personnel at the Erlanger office regarding
certain plant operators' roles in operating and controlling Duke Energy's Line LP03, as well as its
Constance Cavern facility. Based on these interviews, PHMSA allegedly determined that the
Erlanger office remotely controlled the pipeline and was therefore a “control room.” PHMSA
also determined that certain operators at the Erlanger air-propane plant met the definition of
“controller” set forth above As such, Duke Energy was allegedly required to have and follow
written CRM procedures.
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. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and
follow written control room management procedures that implement the requirements of
§ 195.446.



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 4
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline
integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:
(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses
the risks on each segment of pipeline . . .
(5) Implement and follow the program.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to follow its
own written integrity management program (IMP). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Duke
Energy failed to follow its: (1) Assessment Methods Selection Process Flowchart, GD70.06-006,
procedure when it used an integrity-assessment method that was not specified in the procedure as
an approved method; (2) Hazardous Liquid IMP Information Analysis, GD75.01-008, when it
failed to review assessment results and perform an information analysis within the required 150-
day timeframe; (3) Continuing Evaluation and Assessment, GD75.01-007, when it failed to
perform the required formal evaluations of the integrity of its pipelines that must “consider the
results of the baseline and subsequent assessments, the information analysis performed after each
assessment, decisions regarding remediation and decisions regarding preventive and mitigative
measures;" and (4) Hazardous Liquid Pipeline IMP, Section 9 – Performance Plan, and
Appendix B – Performance Measures, when it failed to compile the required annual IMP
performance measures for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015.
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. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to follow its
own written IMP.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?
(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection:
(i) . . . .
(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any
modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made,
variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the
integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(ii) by failing to maintain, for
the useful life of the pipeline, documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any
modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken,
to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in
§ 195.452(f). Specifically, the Notice alleged that four segments of the pipeline were pressure-



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 5
tested as part of a baseline assessment on October 20, 2005. Under Duke Energy’s Continuing
Evaluation and Assessment Procedure, GD75.01-007, each pipeline covered by its IMP must be
reassessed “within a maximum period of five years of the previous assessment.” Accordingly,
the four segments were required to be reassessed by October 20, 2010; however, the Notice
alleged that this was not done. Duke Energy did not have any records or documents to support
the decision to deviate from implementing its IMP regarding reassessments for these four in-
service segments.
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. § 195.452(l)(ii) by failing to maintain
documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications,
deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate
each element of the integrity management program required under § 195.452(f).
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 $55,700 for the violations cited above.
Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $39,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(b)(5), for failing to follow its own IMP. Duke Energy neither contested the allegation
nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $39,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5).
Item 9: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(l)(1)(ii), for failing to maintain documents to support the decisions and analyses,
including any modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and
actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program
required under § 195.452(f). Duke Energy neither contested the allegation nor presented any
evidence or argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
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).



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 6
$16,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii).
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 $55,700, which amount was paid
in full by wire transfer on June 12, 2018.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 4 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.1(a) and 195.446(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. 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 § 195.1(a) (Item 1), Respondent must revise its
written plans and procedures to incorporate Constance Cavern and to include all
pipeline facilities (as defined in § 195.2) located at the plant site and on plant
property, including plant property security fencing. The revisions, at a minimum and
as applicable to each facility, must be in accordance with Duke Energy’s written
plans and procedures used to administer its pipeline safety program including, but not
limited to, written plans and procedures required by Part 195, Subparts F and G.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.1(a) (Item 1), Respondent must also provide
to PHMSA, for approval, a written list of activities, with a completions schedule, that
are required to be performed in order for Constance Cavern to comply with Duke
Energy’s revised written plans and procedures described in Compliance Order Item 1
above.
3. Submit to the Director, Southern Region, OPS, within 30 days following receipt of
the Final Order, written documentation of steps taken to satisfy Compliance Order
Items 1 and 2 above.
4. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(a) (Item 4), Respondent must revise its
written CRM procedures to incorporate its Erlanger office as a control room, and
identify individuals located at the Erlanger office who control Line LP03 as
controllers (as defined in § 195.2), and provide to PHMSA, for approval, a written list
of activities, with a completions schedule, that are required to be performed in order
for the Erlanger office and individuals identified as controllers to be in compliance
with Duke Energy’s revised CRM procedures.
5. Submit to the Director, Southern Region, OPS, within 60 days following receipt of
the Final Order, written documentation of steps taken to satisfy Compliance Order
Item 4 above.



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 7
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.
It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. 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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), 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 ITEMS
With respect to Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part
195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are
considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.49 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to complete an
annual report on DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 for 2016; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review its
manual of written procedures for handling emergencies, at intervals not exceeding
15 months, but at least once each calendar year; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(j)(1) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 195.446(e)(3),
relating to alarm management; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to continually
change its integrity management program to reflect operating experience,
conclusions drawn from the results of integrity assessments, and other
maintenance and surveillance data; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(5)(iv) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to notify
OPS 90 days before conducting an assessment using “other technology;”
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct
cathodic protection tests on its protected pipeline at least once each calendar year,
but with intervals not exceeding 15 months;
49 C.F.R. § 195.588(b)(1) (Item 11) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow the
requirements of NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) for
performing external corrosion direct assessments; and



CPF No. 2-2018-6002
Page 8
49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 12) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
records for at least five years of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,
inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by Subpart H of Part
195 in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion-control measures
or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.
If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
February 4, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

220186002_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
May 15, 2018
Ms. Lynn J. Good
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
139 East Fourth Street, Mail Drop EX403
Cincinnati, OH, 45202
CPF 2-2018-6002
Dear Ms. Good:
Between July 31, 2017 and September 21, 2017, 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 Duke Energy Kentucky,
Inc.’s (Duke Energy) records in its Cincinnati, Ohio and Erlanger, Kentucky offices, and
inspected Duke Energy’s facilities in Kenton County, Kentucky.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Duke Energy committed probable violations of
the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items
inspected and the probable violations are:
1. §195.1 Which pipelines are covered by this Part?
(a) Covered. Except for the pipelines listed in paragraph (b) of this Section, this Part
applies to pipeline facilities and the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon
dioxide associated with those facilities in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
including pipeline facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Covered pipelines
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Any pipeline that transports a highly volatile liquid;
(2) Any pipeline segment that crosses a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;



(3) Except for a gathering line not covered by paragraph (a)(4) of this Section, any
pipeline located in a rural or non-rural area of any diameter regardless of operating
pressure;
(4) Any of the following onshore gathering lines used for transportation of
petroleum:
(i) A pipeline located in a non-rural area;
(ii) A regulated rural gathering line as provided in §195.11; or
(iii) A pipeline located in an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico as provided in §195.413.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not incorporate its
Constance Cavern Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Storage Facility (Constance Cavern) into all
relevant portions of its pipeline safety program.
Section 195.2 defines pipeline or pipeline system as “all parts of a pipeline facility through
which a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide moves in transportation, including, but not
limited to, line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to line pipe, pumping
units, fabricated assemblies associated with pumping units, metering and delivery stations
and fabricated assemblies therein, and breakout tanks.” Furthermore, § 195.2 defines
pipeline facility as “new and existing pipe, rights-of-way and any equipment, facility, or
building used in the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide.”
Duke Energy’s Constance Cavern meets the above-referenced definition of “pipeline
facility” because the submerged pumps and appurtenances within the cavern transfer LPG
out of the storage cavern to the bi-directional pipeline for transport downstream (relative
to the cavern) to the Erlanger plant. Furthermore, the cavern receives LPG from the same
bi-directional pipeline via trucking injection at the Erlanger plant. Consequently,
Constance Cavern is covered under § 195.1.
2. §195.49 Annual report.
Each operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1
for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the end of the previous
year. An operator must submit the annual report by June 15 each year, except that
for the 2010 reporting year the report must be submitted by August 15, 2011. A
separate report is required for crude oil, HVL (including anhydrous ammonia),
petroleum products, carbon dioxide pipelines, and fuel grade ethanol pipelines. For
each state a pipeline traverses, an operator must separately complete those sections
on the form requiring information to be reported for each state.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not complete its 2016
Annual Report as required by § 195.49.
Part F, Section 5 of the Annual Report requires operators to provide “Mileage Inspected
and Actions Taken in Calendar Year Based on Other Inspection Techniques.” Review of
Duke Energy’s integrity assessment plan indicated that, in Calendar Year 2016, Duke
Energy conducted an integrity assessment on its Line LP03 using “Other Technology”
(LP-ICDA). Duke Energy failed to include this data in Part F, Section 5 of its 2016
Annual Report.
2



3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be
reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,
and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.
This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system
commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it could not demonstrate that it
reviewed its emergency plans and procedures at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at
least once each calendar year. Specifically, Duke Energy could not demonstrate that it
had reviewed its Plan for Emergencies and Natural Disasters at intervals not exceeding
15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
Records provided to the PHMSA inspectors consisted of the first page of the 2014, 2015,
and 2016 revisions of the Plan for Emergency and Natural Disasters. The pages
referenced only the December revision (edition) dates of the prior year. While Duke
Energy personnel provided plan approval records for the referenced years, these records
did not indicate that the plans had been reviewed as required of the regulations.
Similarly, records documenting the required annual reviews of Duke Energy’s Hazardous
Liquid Operations Plan (HLOP) referenced review due dates for years 2014, 2015, and
2016, but did not provide the dates the reviews were completed.
4. §195.446 Control room management.
(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a
controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a
pipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow
written control room management procedures that implement the requirements of
this section. The procedures required by this section must be integrated, as
appropriate, with the operator's written procedures required by §195.402. An
operator must develop the procedures no later than August 1, 2011, and must
implement the procedures according to the following schedule. The procedures
required by paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must
be implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no later
than August 1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h) must be
implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any training required by
another paragraph of this section must be implemented no later than the deadline
for that paragraph.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not have and follow
written control room management (CRM) procedures that implement the requirements of
§ 195.446. Specifically, Duke Energy did not identify the Erlanger air-propane plant
office (Erlanger office) as a control room, as defined in § 195.2
3



Control room is defined in § 195.2 as “an operations center staffed by personnel charged
with the responsibility for remotely monitoring and controlling a pipeline facility.”
Furthermore, controller is defined in § 195.2 as “a qualified individual who remotely
monitors and controls the safety-related operations of a pipeline facility via a SCADA
system from a control room, and who has operational authority and accountability for the
remote operational functions of the pipeline facility.” During the inspection, PHMSA
inspectors interviewed personnel at the Erlanger office regarding certain plant operators’
roles in operating and controlling Duke Energy’s Line LP03, as well as its Constance
Cavern facility.
Based on the information and facts listed below, the Erlanger office is a Control Room
and certain Erlanger plant operators are Controllers, per § 195.2.
 August 3, 2017 interview with the gas Control Manager (Cincinnati): Control Center
calls the Erlanger air-propane plant (Erlanger Plant), located at the north end of
Line LP03, and instructs Erlanger personnel when to operate the pipeline. (See below
regarding Erlanger operation of the pipeline.) Cincinnati Gas Control monitors the
LP03 line pressures, receives safety-related alarms, and has the ability to shut down
the pumps at Constance Cavern.
 August 4, 2017 and September 21, 2017 interviews at Erlanger plant with the Systems
Operations Manager and an Erlanger Plant Operator:
o Erlanger could be called on to start and operate the LP03 line to supply its natural
gas system during certain peak demand days during winter months.
o Starting the pipeline on peak days to supply the propane-air plant: Erlanger
operator(s) remotely start the submerged pump(s) and manipulate certain valves
located at Constance Cavern (3.41 pipeline miles from Erlanger), via the use of
Erlanger SCADA screen data and pump on/off and valve positioning commands.
Erlanger operators monitor the pipeline operation and pressure on a 24/7 basis
when the line is operating in withdrawal mode.
o Refilling Constance Cavern: propane trucks typically pump the propane into the
pipeline at Erlanger, and the product moves down the pipeline into the cavern via
gravity flow. May take a month to refill the cavern, depending on storage volume
and number of Mon-Fri 12-hour daytime (only) shifts when re-filling the cavern.
 November 10, 2017 email response conveys that Duke Energy considers Cincinnati
Gas Control to be its only control room. Procedure GD50.1263-2, titled “Erlanger
Gas Plant – Starting, Operating And Shutting Down Mixing System,” also conveys
pipeline start up and shutdown as part of the Erlanger plant operation.
As of PHMSA’s inspection, Duke Energy did not consider the Erlanger office as a Control
Room, and the referenced operators as Controllers, subject to the Control Room
Management requirements of § 195.446. Furthermore, Duke Energy provided no records
or related procedures, indicating it conducted any study referencing the Control Room and
Controller definitions in § 195.2, to determine whether the Erlanger was a Control Room.
The Erlanger office is located at the south end of the 3.41-mile long Line LP03, and
4



remotely controls the pipeline; therefore, it meets the definition of a Control Room, as
defined in § 195.2. Because the Erlanger office is a Control Room, Duke Energy was
required to have and follow written CRM procedures that implement the requirements of §
195.446.
5. §195.446 Control room management.
…(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review during
inspection:
(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not maintain records
relating to alarm management as prescribed in §195.446(e)(3).
Section 195.446(e)(3) requires that “[e]ach operator using a SCADA system must have a
written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An
operator’s plan must include provisions to... [v]erify the correct safety-related alarm set-
point values and alarm descriptions when associated field instruments are calibrated or
changed and at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.”
Duke Energy’s CRM records did not accurately describe a pressure deviation alarm for
Line LP03 in its annual (not to exceed 15 months) safety-related alarm reviews, as
required by § 195.446(e)(3). Duke Energy’s 2014, 2015, and 2016 safety-related alarm
review records describe the pressure deviation alarm as “RTU Calculation Based on
Pressures.” However, in its response to PHMSA’s request to describe the
programming/algorithm(s) in its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system that would trigger the leak detection alarm(s), Duke Energy described the alarm as
“When comparison of Constance Cavern outlet pressure and Erlanger Gas Plant pressure
deviates more than 5 psig for a period of more than 2 minutes.”
6. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
…(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity?
Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:
…(5) Implement and follow the program.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not follow its Integrity
Management (IM) program as follows:
A. Duke Energy performed an integrity assessment on its Line LP03 in 2016 using a
Liquid Petroleum Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (LP-ICDA) assessment method.
At the time of the assessment, which was completed on July 1, 2016, Section 8 of Duke
Energy’s Hazardous Liquid Pipeline IMP, dated September 30, 2013, and Duke Energy
Procedure GD70.06-006, titled “Assessment Methods Selection Process Flowchart,” did
not specify LP-ICDA as an approved integrity assessment method. Duke Energy drafted a
LP-ICDA procedure in February of 2016, prior to the 2016 assessment, but the procedure
was not finalized until April 6, 2017. Furthermore, as of PHMSA’s 2017 inspection,
Duke Energy had not incorporated the above-referenced LP-ICDA procedure into its IM
program.
5



B. Item 4A of Duke Energy Procedure GD75.01-008, titled “Hazardous Liquid IMP
Liquid Analysis,” requires that “Within 150 days of completion of the Integrity
Assessment for each pipeline, a review of the assessments results will be completed and
the Information Analysis will be performed.” Following a June 6, 2016, External
Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) of Line LP03, the required Information Analysis
was submitted to Duke Energy on July 20, 2017, 259 days after the 150-day deadline
required by the above-referenced procedure.
C. Section 3 of Duke Energy Procedure GD75.01-007 (Effective Date November 25,
2013), titled “Continuing Evaluation and Assessment,” requires that Duke Energy perform
formal evaluations of the integrity of its pipelines, including the development and
documentation of a formal process for such evaluations. Furthermore, the same procedure
requires that the evaluations “will consider the results of the baseline and subsequent
assessments, the information analysis performed after each assessment, decisions
regarding remediation and decisions regarding preventive and mitigative measures.”
Duke Energy conducted an ECDA assessment of its Line LP03 on June 6, 2016. At the
time of PHMSA’s inspection, Duke Energy personnel were unable to produce a record of
the required formal evaluation. Duke Energy stated that its Continual Assessment Plan
(CAP) complied with this requirement. However, the CAP does not provide the
information required by the above-referenced procedure, such as the results of the
assessment, the information analysis, decisions regarding remediation, and decisions
regarding Preventive and Mitigative Measures (P&MMs).
D. Duke Energy failed to compile Integrity Management Program (IMP) performance
measures for Calendar Years 2013, 2014, and 2015 on the Performance Measures
spreadsheet, as required to be gathered annually by Duke Energy’s Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline IMP “Section 9 – Performance Plan, and Appendix B - Performance Measures.”
7. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
…(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity
management program begins with the initial framework. An operator must
continually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn
from results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance
data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An
operator must include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written
integrity management program…
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not change its IM
program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity
assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data. Specifically, Duke Energy did
not include, nor reference in its IM program, the LP-ICDA procedures that were used to
assess Line LP03 in 2015 after it determined that the line could not be assessed using in-
line inspection (ILI) tools.
Duke Energy installed ILI tool launchers and receivers on its Line LP03 in preparation for
an integrity assessment in 2015. When attempting to run the ILI tool(s) it was discovered
that restrictions in the line prevented a successful tool run. As an alternative, a LP-ICDA
6



assessment was conducted 2016 on Line LP03 in 2016, between Constance Cavern and
the Erlanger air-propane plant. The 2016 LP-ICDA report conveys that the assessment
was conducted according to Duke Energy Energy’s LP-ICDA procedure, as well as
guidance from NACE Standard Practice (SP) 0208-2008, titled “Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment Methodology for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines.” However, such procedures
were neither approved nor incorporated into Duke Energy’s IMP.
8. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
…(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's
integrity?—(1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an
operator must continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and periodically
evaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence
area.
…(5) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by
any of the following methods. The methods an operator selects to assess low
frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to
longitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of
detecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.
(i) In-Line Inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion and deformation
anomalies, including dents, gouges, and grooves. For pipeline segments that are
susceptible to cracks (pipe body and weld seams), an operator must use an in-line
inspection tool or tools capable of detecting crack anomalies. When performing an
assessment using an In-Line Inspection tool, an operator must comply with §195.591;
(ii) Pressure test conducted in accordance with subpart E of this part;
(iii)External corrosion direct assessment in accordance with §195.588; or
(iv) Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent
understanding of the condition of the line pipe. An operator choosing this option
must notify OPS 90 days before conducting the assessment, by sending a notice to the
address or facsimile number specified in paragraph (m) of this section.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not notify OPS 90 days
before conducting an assessment using “other technology.” Specifically, Duke Energy
conducted a LP-ICDA on its Line LP03 in 2016 and did not notify OPS. LP-ICDA is
considered “other technology” under § 195.452(j)(5).
Duke Energy assessed Line LP03 for the identified threat of internal corrosion in 2016.
Duke Energy personnel conveyed to the PHMSA inspector that the LP-ICDA assessment
served as a P&MM for continual monitoring of the internal corrosion threat. This
explanation notwithstanding, Duke Energy’s reassessment plan reviewed by PHMSA
indicated the 2016 LP-ICDA assessment of Line LP03 was an integrity re-assessment.
9. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
…(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?
(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum, an
operator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection:
7



…(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications,
justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to
implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in
paragraph (f) of this section.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not maintain records or
documents to support its decisions and analyses, including any modifications,
justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to
implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in §
195.452(f).
Duke Energy could not produce records or documentation as to why the segments listed
below were not assessed within Duke Energy’s prescribed time period, contrary to the
requirements of § 195.452(l)(1)(ii). Each segment was baseline-assessed by pressure test
on October 20, 2005 and, per the procedure, each was required to be re-assessed by
October 20, 2010. It is noted that the below-listed segments were components of
pipelines that were still in service as of the dates of the PHMSA inspection.
 Segment in Casing 23: 400-foot Interstate I-71/75 crossing; pipe was not re-
assessed, and was replaced on November 15, 2011.
 Segment in Casing 55: Amsterdam Road; re-assessed on December 5, 2012.
 Segment in Casing 39: Crescent Springs Pike crossing; pipe was not re-assessed,
and was abandoned in place on August 3, 2012.
 Segment in Casing 13221 I-275 crossing; pipe was not re-assessed, and was
replaced on September 10, 2012.
10. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic
protection required by this subpart complies with §195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are
impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated
pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals
not exceeding 39 months.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not conduct tests on its
protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15
months.
Per records documenting Duke Energy’s 2014 annual cathodic protection (CP) survey,
pipe-to-soil (p/s) potential readings were taken at three test stations in the vicinity of Duke
Energy’s Erlanger air-propane plant on February 9, 2014. Records documenting the 2015
annual CP survey indicate the subsequent p/s potential readings at the above-referenced
test stations were taken on August 26, 2015, exceeding the 15-month interval by 109 days.
Records indicate that, on March 31, 2015, the corrosion technician "couldn’t get inside the
Duke Energy station,” leading to Duke Energy exceeding with 15-month interval.
8



11. §195.588 What standards apply to direct assessment?
…(b) The requirements for performing external corrosion direct assessment are as
follows:
(1) General. You must follow the requirements of NACE SP0502 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3). Also, you must develop and implement a External Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ECDA) plan that includes procedures addressing pre-assessment,
indirect examination, direct examination, and post-assessment.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not follow the
requirements of NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). Specifically,
Duke Energy did not follow the pre-assessment step in NACE SP0502 when conducting
continual ECDA integrity assessments on its Line LP03 in 2012 and 2016, as follows.
A. Duke Energy combined segments of multiple pipelines into one ECDA Region. Duke
Energy included the hazardous liquid 8-inch Line LP03 cased pipe segment (Casing
#55) and predominantly 24-inch natural gas transmission pipeline cased segments into
a single Region when conducting the 2012 Cased Pipe ECDA (CECDA) on Line
LP03. NACE SP0502-2008 Sections 3.5.1.1.1 and 3.5.1.3 indicate that an ECDA
region is, in part, a portion of a pipeline segment.
From NACE SP0502-2008a (emphasis added):
3.5 Identification of ECDA Regions
3.5.1 The pipeline operator shall analyze the data collected in the Pre-assessment
Step to identify ECDA regions.
3.5.1.1 The pipeline operator should define criteria for identifying ECDA regions.
3.5.1.1.1 An ECDA region is a portion of a pipeline segment that has similar
physical characteristics, corrosion histories, expected future corrosion conditions,
and that uses the same indirect inspection tools.
B. The 2016 Line LP03 ECDA Preassessment Step Data Element Sheet indicates the
pipeline joint coating types as “Heat shrinks and hot wax with paper were applied at
the joints.” This description is incomplete because the original pipeline joint coating
type was not included. 1961 engineering records indicate that 156 rolls of Royston “4-
in. wide Hi-flo Quik-wrap” and 10 gallons of “Raybond A-36 primer” were specified
for the initial construction project, indicating that a hand-applied tape wrap coating
was applied at the girth weld joints during original construction.
Certain shrink sleeves and hand-applied tapes are known to be shielding coatings
which, in the event of a disbondment or loss of adhesion, diverts or prevents the flow
of cathodic protection current from its intended path. Table 1 of NACE SP0502-2010,
titled “ECDA Data Elements,” requires joint coating type to be determined during the
Preassessment Step, and conveys that “ECDA may not be appropriate for coatings
that cause shielding.” The above-referenced records indicate that Duke Energy failed
to meet the NACE SP0502-2010 requirement for joint coating type to be determined
a The 2012 CECDA records indicate that NACE SP0502-2010 was used; regardless, at the time of the
assessment the 2008 edition was the code-referenced edition. The 2010 edition became effective March 6, 2015.
9



during the Preassessment Step. Furthermore, Table 2 of NACE SP0502-2010, titled
“ECDA Tool Selection Matrix,” conveys the following:
“Shielding by Disbonded Coating: None of these survey tools is capable of detecting
coating conditions that exhibit no electrically continuous pathway to the soil.”
12. 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?
…(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,
examination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this
subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control
measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist. You must
retain these records for at least 5 years, except that records related to §§195.569,
195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained for as long as the
pipeline remains in service.
Duke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not maintain a record of
each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review,
survey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of
corrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not exist.
During PHMSA’s inspection, Duke Energy personnel were unable to produce records
confirming inspection for evidence of internal corrosion when pipe was removed in 2014
to install an ILI tool launcher and receiver on Line LP03.
Proposed Civil Penalty
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. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty
not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has
reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable
violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $55,700
as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
6
9
$39,200
$16,500
Warning Items
With respect to Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, 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 these items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.
10



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1 and 4, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Duke Energy
Kentucky, Inc. 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 2-2018-6002 and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
James A. Urisko
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
11



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the
compliance of Duke Energy with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to Duke Energy’s failure to include its
Constance Cavern facility in all relevant portions of its pipeline safety program,
a. Duke Energy must revise its written plans and procedures to incorporate the
Constance Cavern Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Storage Facility (Constance
Cavern), to include all pipeline facilities as defined in 195.2 that are located at
the plant site and on plant property, including plant property security fencing.
The referenced revisions, as a minimum and as applicable to each facility, must
be in accordance with Duke Energy’s written plans and procedures it uses to
administer its pipeline safety program including, but not limited to, those written
plans and procedures required of Subparts F and G of Title 49, CFR Part 195
(Part 195).
b. Duke Energy must provide to PHMSA for approval a written list of activities,
with a completion schedule, that are required to be performed in order for
Constance Cavern to be in compliance with Duke Energy’s revised written plans
and procedures that are described in Item 1a. above.
c. Duke Energy must complete all activities described in Item 1b. above.
2. In regard to Item 4 of the Notice pertaining to Duke Energy’s failure to identify the
Erlanger air-propane plant office (Erlanger office) as a control room, as defined in
§ 195.2,
a. Duke Energy must revise its written control room management (CRM)
procedures to incorporate its Erlanger office as a Control room, and identify the
individuals located at the Erlanger office who control Line LP03 as Controllers,
all as defined in § 195.2.
b. Duke Energy must provide to PHMSA for approval a written list of activities,
with a completion schedule, that are required to be performed in order for the
Erlanger office and individuals. as referenced in item 1b. above, to be in
compliance with Duke Energy’s revised CRM procedures and § 195.2.
c. Duke Energy must complete all activities described in Item 2b. above.
3. Duke Energy must complete the above Items within the following time requirements.
a. Within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order Duke Energy must complete the
requirements of Items 1a. and 1b. above.
b. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order Duke Energy must complete the
requirements of Items 2a. and 2b. above.
12



4. c. Within 150 days of receipt of the Final Order Duke Energy must provide written
documentation confirming the completion of Items 1 and 2 above to the Director,
Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region.
It is requested (not mandated) that Duke Energy maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region. 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.
13

220186002_Closure Letter_04252019_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 25, 2019
Ms. Lynn J. Good
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
139 East Fourth Street, Mail Drop EX403
Cincinnati, OH, 45202
CPF 2-2018-6002
Dear Ms. Good:
From July 31, 2017 through September 21, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of Duke Energy
Kentucky, Inc. (Duke Energy) records in its Cincinnati, Ohio and Erlanger, Kentucky offices,
and its facilities in Kenton County, Kentucky. As a result of the inspections, OPS issued
Duke Energy a Final Order with a Civil Penalty and Compliance Order (CO) on
February 4, 2019. The CO required Duke Energy to undertake certain actions to ensure
compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations.
Duke Energy paid the Civil Penalty on June 12, 2018. Furthermore, OPS Southern Region
received multiple communications documenting Duke Energy’s response to the CO, with all
items confirmed as completed on April 8, 2019.
Based upon payment of the Civil Penalty and our review of the actions taken by Duke Energy
(as well as the supporting documentation), we have determined that Duke Energy has
complied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order. This case is now closed and no
further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.
Please be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2018-6002)
and not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.
Sincerely,
James A. Urisko
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220186002>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `87083fdf1dc66e6723a33286dd9b1004c42e6d517c9d6c9fdc5edc1a1de7989e`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T04:16:29.530Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-220186002`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "220186002",
  "operator": "DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY - LIQUID",
  "region": "Southern",
  "pipelineType": "INTRASTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.1(a)",
    "195.402(a)",
    "195.446(a)",
    "195.446(j)(1)",
    "195.452(b)(5)",
    "195.452(f)",
    "195.452(j)(5)",
    "195.452(l)(1)(ii)",
    "195.49",
    "195.573(a)(1)",
    "195.588(b)(1)",
    "195.589(c)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 7,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "220186002_Closure Letter_04252019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Closure%20Letter_04252019.pdf",
      "bytes": 146857,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "220186002_Closure Letter_04252019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Closure%20Letter_04252019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 74307,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "220186002_Final Order_02042019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Final%20Order_02042019.pdf",
      "bytes": 2509226,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "220186002_Final Order_02042019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Final%20Order_02042019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 177412,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "220186002_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05152018.pdf",
      "bytes": 2734554,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "220186002_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05152018_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 185362,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "220186002_Operator Response to Notice_06082018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186002/220186002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06082018.pdf",
      "bytes": 1079164,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 3,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY - LIQUID"
}
```