Enforcementhistorical
CPF 220081006W
KENTUCKY - WEST VIRGINIA GAS CO — Warning Letter
Current as of source date
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchCPF 220081006W
220081006w_warning letter_03142008_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU. S~epart nT of Transp n thlpetln HazaNto ~lni als Safety 233 Peachtree Street Ste. 600 Atlapta, GA 30303 1)ET) k - RETURN RE S Margh 14I, 20 %. ~ Mr. Jeff B @resident eral Manager Kentuclcyi+ irginia Gas Con)lttany 748 North@ fl)rive Prestonsbtni, 'Ii 41653 , , I ~ i I' I CPF No. IZ:-2008-1006W L I gm On August 2941j, 2007, representatives of e+tpelitte andi Hazardous Materials Safety Administr ' JtltMSA), pursuantit5T 601 af nited Statest&ode, inspected your Integrity M Went Program at Preston g, Kentuc As aitlesiil inspection, it appears, you have dsdngge~rqbable violations of the Pipeline i gulations, Title&IC~of Feder~tssISilations. The items inspected and the ' probable viiol ns are: ~ I g9gi 9QWihat must tsainpe le~sse tttfplan? precautions i(e) oaeduretoensurerfhtt Iiftelin'ett eshnentitsibeingconductedina m that minimizes envieaggpngl andi s ptisks. I I I A pot nttal issue was ident' ed tha atlegtiate were not i specified in the prtIce implemented to ensure aselineiassassments are being conducted in a pt ijptyd ' gth t, dgtth~%d, tti g t tr High at minimizes envimnme al and safe les. -The concern stems from an I Cb ence Areai(iHCA)i a. Ropti d8%tandiysis of the incident by the e found that qualifie made e iit following the company pro es. 2. ttl . How does an operato 'gratify potgfttiaLthriqats to pipeline integrity and us h attidentificatiitlra 'ity glans?l I — t I ( i(a denrifrcarion. Antq e inu [iidlenjtlp and evplutttetallspotential t Sach coveredttStl0tltl dhtg e 'alt~eats thaitsenitttierator must 3 m s h I I I i I m ~ I g#
220081006w_warning letter_03142008_text.pdf, page 2I , ( t' . ~ I s s I Jl J. I I/ 'ngludie, but are not' ' ' 2. 7), section 2. to, the a Iistedsn AiNISK/ANSI 831. 8S I I [ lt) he threat identificattoutp dequately considered or ss, as desgjlPeII in the IMP section 5 . 6. 3, has not ted intLs&t~e threats as stat@tin ASME 3. 1. 8S, Section 2. 2. ' ' e data for tho-threat~id n an41risk assessment has not been adequately nhecked for accIiracyiaa ' AiS~ i8S, Secttoni4. 1. Specific h xamples include accur m+o4eness of data@lated to-etfective one-call tern and atmosphel5c n. ~3) e, iiMP does notadequ 'ddress iiltog ation of ILI or ECIltAsesults with V' a zen encroachme%sio gee dro ggs in the saint segment to identify tions of potentipghir damag stated in'ASMII IIt3T. 8S, Section 4. 5. I 3. Itit What are the requitie~lformsing%xtecnai Corrosion. Direct ent (ECDA)? I criteria and notitac cgtfqjggpr any changes in the ECDA Plan, Nne hanges that, altitiecglth vnr — sasaidation, tIIe priority of direct 'on, and the time frgtrIp iree 'nation~ of/nsdications. ~ ~ I I lt) ECDA Plan does no e adeqwat ria and notification procedures for y changes in the ~ incltt&h~h angeMhat d~t the severity assification, theipsiori ect ex~ation, and the tend &arne for direct . ~ antinations of indicati e ECDA Plan in 6. 1 s at-th maining half life to be used for I culating the reassess rstal iss thee "scheduled" indication and +pot the )argest unique&indi abound 'Cls 0502-2002 andthe i ~)erpretation of thi~if Intro CE Technical C&ptmittee. The ~assessmentintervalsit dan 's ed" indications sine&all ' immediate" indicatiordj e ber~yjpssetfiduring the direct examination ep and "monitoretp' in 'ons are egg'ed ta-experierice4stsignificant rovrth. e ECDA Plan in 6. 5& t have ovision to reduce thelre-assessment terval based oniconditi un' otII i stating what appropriate federal I r gulations must be eval eni e are found (i. e. there are scheduled efects left unexcavated) +ertssessmentintervalifor each ECDA region is np+alfofthe rematmn calculate ' 6. 5. 1. However, the maximum assessment interv or egiqn m urther'/i~/ted by the most strtetive criteria fr reIo o/Jowing regulations, codes, and n$ards: 49CFRfi $/. 8, ASME B3/. BS, or NACE ' ~ 0502. I 4 t'III'% %hat are the requir wit ittoments jn~ co pipeline segments. — I aS%essmeni?iiwatervais? An operator must comply ' ggaxtea~ssmentitaIerv+for the operator's I I I I#
220081006w_warning letter_03142008_text.pdf, page 3L L . p I I 2 lsk 5) . eg i . ila e arqps r fi Tk und Call I Ia ~ I l, 'Q-, gill9 vs I Ious (e)(5) ith ('liil9 en ev T ' ~ he IMP Section 13, Hated June 5, 20 esi not accuratelyi and clearly describe rocess for regses ov Smell orJwhichlalbpeline essment wk con8)lct progr inantirienlains iui a "framework" tatus with significant. 'ad a~og~e~o meet the regulation pirements. e process tonsure nklittt aie appropriate is not accurately riespnted, includin almsqgsi in%ection 1Xandjigures 13-2, 13- A, 13-3, 13-4 aud 17;5, le: ~ ~ I ow chart logic for som s/no decisi~eiincorrect u IQ I D' ision block C2 outti 13-2 appease be incorrect eral blocks oil iEi u e - lt3-~eedsfurthbt basis for decision criteria fl safety margin rellate min. ~ & technical basis for c on ratebfom%hla in Fjgure 13-5 I ~ 5 yes option onlpgure -4 is mis~ J IlSR is incorrectly s4own. olkiohyp Iligurei13-3 hese examples exhibit 3 to assure theipr&gggs upd basis upoilI which d (or +lneugh review and revision of Section ' tggiiiav KtetIualsi are determined provide a lis+easscssment intervals. 'u What additionalIprev lvhland miitigaiiveaneasltrlez ma~It operator I , Collecling in a ceNttta basei ilvIgoct+io~hat Isiiqcutio)tl specific on bn diamage Diat oceu ilered 844coVerledlsegments in the I I oin Systole. artd tiielp usoianai uppoilipdentiSQation of ' iadlditional pirieventatisi mitty sures in thethjgh consequence is information md'' tlgco alamage Ihat its indi required to be as an incident und es not adequately h Mectin, ' ' n On excavation daimgae helproces ssogiated Audit Aotlon lggster to rev' t aiiysis, should be in. (he lan. a coittral database, loitation-specific usiilig the Central lillcident Database d analyze ihcidei)ts, includi9g root ul does an opera nay Ilbtttiaii'tihreats-to Iliipetipe integritlpand eat identification ' gritg, proOO? IILanoll Q les eo sion on a couered pipeline segment vision. ld adversely Alt . (a3Inditionsqpaci6cd in qthp opernatou. 'm e d torus necesls~, all pipeline i+4th c evened an credit ' rimatetliultcok(gng and I enitai characttu4s 'cs. erat +SlisJI la Sillleiltule for ndtiemedipting, a aey, ith mllarsegmenitsthatiisconsisteat ) I Ioperato~s esta~she qlllnlgia intepqqpe qrncpilmuutS~nder part estidg and riqppiirg I l es aiot addresgl4g, srosiqg4n sinular ', I I#
220081006w_warning letter_03142008_text.pdf, page 4~ I I I no c ed segments when serio orrosion discovered in a covered segment. I I I 7. Itil . hqt liiecords usus atnrlkegfp tntentsitIo supportlan stoII, anall~nd processldevel+ed and used to i and evaluate eaglii ent othe'lidRSne assllspmentl ghn and integrity nl Sia nt program. Dnqi ' clu4p tj e ' vQoped uttdlulidd in support of . I~ . an+i I ation, calculatioit, dment, mod' ication, jILstlSusllion, deviation anuLugrntlinalslon made, agdl 4ionl elmmlement and leslaluate any of m the ro m elements. I l ~ I L Su i ent documentation was n I~I&le suppost]pe basis for manlr decisions, ah dkgprocess develcpe dgxo ~mldn~tand evaluate 4h IMP. IExaI0 s(include bases forl Ilm ynceml ('!%der)-inethodology, historical ' non- sl)tity of gas, not a4di maticlshutE&fflvalives or remote'control valves; Im corrpsgp growth equation ip Fi -6, and aisgpsilSIrin OMiucrcpancy between test lhccdp%ce pressure and test pl ~- doc tation of the basis for dyes ns. T J ure. A proPVss@hotlld bo-develqped to require Under L49 States Code (I 6I6522, 1 ' isject~cilvil penaltyinot to exceed $100, 000 for each I orl each daytthe violatio grist upt&g magnum of $1, 000@00 for any I related senes ielations. We have Ile ed the 'rcmp4nces and lsupporting documents J. l involved in' case, and have decided. no nduct u'dtllitional enforcement action or penalty assesSIneII eed'ing at thiztiute. Wie youito cokect the item(s) identlilfied in this letter. Fail domo wilII result i+cut West Virgi jia %as Company(being subject to additional ment action I I ~ N o reply to leger is required. If yoq Clap No. QI006W. Be advi~edltha enforcemeqt on is subject to being, of your its e material qualifiesf with the corn e'original dochmeqgyo portionsyou ' equalifyforcoqgle believe the re ted information quahfIIW Mohammed I se lto repl, ' your correspondenceIplease refer to ateri ~ hmit in response to this u icly ila e. ' If you believe ~Ihat-any portion iu ent under 5 W. S. C. 552(b), along roi(i second copy of the document with the e dattid an explanation of why you e cut~der 5 V. SlC. 552(b). I Sincerely, g alh Djreaterg egiou 'lpipelide@id debus Materials Wet~ — I I' I istrati 4#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.