# KENTUCKY - WEST VIRGINIA GAS CO — Warning Letter

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 220081006W
- **title:** KENTUCKY - WEST VIRGINIA GAS CO — Warning Letter
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2008-03-14
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED warning letter citing 192.917(a), 192.917(e)(5), 192.919(e), 192.925(b)(3)(iii), 192.935(b)(1)(ii), 192.939, 192.947(d).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220081006w.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220081006w.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220081006w
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220081006W
**body:**

Warning Letter involving KENTUCKY - WEST VIRGINIA GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.917(a),  192.917(e)(5),  192.919(e),  192.925(b)(3)(iii),  192.935(b)(1)(ii),  192.939,  192.947(d). The case was opened on 2008-03-14 and is reported as closed as of 2008-03-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

220081006W_warning letter_03142008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081006W/220081006W_warning%20letter_03142008.pdf

220081006w_warning letter_03142008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220081006W/220081006w_warning%20letter_03142008_text.pdf

220081006w_warning letter_03142008_text.pdf

U. 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



I
, ( 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



L
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



~ 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
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 9162