{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220186003M","title":"DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY - LIQUID — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-05-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(c)(13), 195.403(a)(1), 195.452(h)(4), 195.452(j)(5)(iv).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220186003m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220186003m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220186003m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220186003M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving DUKE ENERGY KENTUCKY - LIQUID. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(13),  195.403(a)(1),  195.452(h)(4),  195.452(j)(5)(iv). The case was opened on 2018-05-15 and is reported as closed as of 2019-10-25. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220186003M_Closure Letter_10252019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186003M/220186003M_Closure%20Letter_10252019.pdf\n\n220186003M_Closure Letter_10252019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186003M/220186003M_Closure%20Letter_10252019_text.pdf\n\n220186003M_Notice of Amendment_05152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186003M/220186003M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05152018.pdf\n\n220186003M_Notice of Amendment_05152018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186003M/220186003M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05152018_text.pdf\n\n220186003M_Operator Response to Notice_06082018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220186003M/220186003M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06082018.pdf\n\n220186003M_Notice of Amendment_05152018_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 15, 2018\nMs. Lynn J. Good\nChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer\nDuke Energy Kentucky, Inc.\n139 East Fourth Street, Mail Drop EX403\nCincinnati, OH, 45202\nCPF 2-2018-6003M\nDear Ms. Good:\nBetween July 31, 2017 and September 21, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Duke Energy Kentucky,\nInc.’s (Duke Energy) records in Duke Energy’s Cincinnati, Ohio and Erlanger, Kentucky\noffices, and inspected Duke Energy’s facilities in Kenton County, Kentucky.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nDuke Energy’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n. . . (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n… (13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nDuke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because its procedures did not contain\nsufficient detail to demonstrate that it periodically reviews the work done by operator\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. Specifically, Duke\nEnergy’s Hazardous Liquid Operations Plan (HLOP) restated the regulatory language, but\ndid not specify how Duke Energy would comply with this requirement, or how it would\ndocument the results demonstrating compliance. Duke Energy personnel provided the\nfollowing in response to a request for records demonstrating compliance with\n§ 195.402(c)(13), specific to Duke Energy’s Line LP03.\n1\n\n\n\n Duke Energy Procedure, titled \"Erlanger gas Plant - \"Pigging\" Liquid Propane\nPipeline \"LP03\",\" which included a pigging operation log dated August 12, 2015.\nAlso provided were 2 pre-job checklists associated with the tool run – one from\nDuke Energy and another from the tool vendor each dated August 12, 2015. These\ndocuments do not convey any review of work to determine effectiveness of\nprocedures.\n A Field Observation Report, dated December 5, 2016, described as \"Observed\nPlant Personnel run the plant doing a test run with procedures.\" Although this\ndocument appears to determine the effectiveness of the Erlanger Plant procedures\nwhile observing an employee perform work (“Test Run Procedure for Erlanger\nGas Plant Yard Person”), the document does not convey how this relates to\noperation and maintenance of Line LP03.\n2. §195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a) Each operator shall establish and conduct a continuing training program to\ninstruct emergency response personnel to:\n(1) Carry out the emergency procedures established under 195.402 that relate to their\nassignments;\nDuke Energy failed to comply with the regulation because it did not establish and conduct\na continuing training program to instruct emergency response personnel on how to carry\nout the emergency procedures established under § 195.402 that relate to their assignments.\nThe procedures provided to the PHMSA inspector included only a copy of the regulation.\n3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n. . . (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?—\n. . . (4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation—(i) Immediate repair\nconditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule must provide for\nimmediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator must temporarily\nreduce the operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until the operator completes\nthe repair of these conditions. An operator must calculate the temporary reduction\nin operating pressure using the formulas referenced in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) of this\nsection. If no suitable remaining strength calculation method can be identified, an\noperator must implement a minimum 20 percent or greater operating pressure\nreduction, based on actual operating pressure for two months prior to the date of\ninspection, until the anomaly is repaired. An operator must treat the following\nconditions as immediate repair conditions:\n(A) Metal loss greater than 80% of nominal wall regardless of dimensions.\n(B) A calculation of the remaining strength of the pipe shows a predicted burst\npressure less than the established maximum operating pressure at the location of the\nanomaly. Suitable remaining strength calculation methods include, but are not\nlimited to, ASME/ANSI B31G (incorporated by reference, see §195.3) and PRCI PR-\n3-805 (R-STRENG) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\n(C) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock positions) that\nhas any indication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser.\n(D) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock positions)\nwith a depth greater than 6% of the nominal pipe diameter.\n2\n\n\n\n(E) An anomaly that in the judgment of the person designated by the operator to\nevaluate the assessment results requires immediate action.\n(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this\nsection, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the following\nconditions within 60 days of discovery of condition.\n(A) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock positions)\nwith a depth greater than 3% of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.250 inches in\ndepth for a pipeline diameter less than Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 12).\n(B) A dent located on the bottom of the pipeline that has any indication of metal loss,\ncracking or a stress riser.\n(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of\nthis section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the following\nwithin 180 days of discovery of the condition:\n(A) A dent with a depth greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in\ndepth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth\nweld or a longitudinal seam weld.\n(B) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above 4 and 8 o'clock position) with a\ndepth greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline\ndiameter less than NPS 12).\n(C) A dent located on the bottom of the pipeline with a depth greater than 6% of the\npipeline's diameter.\n(D) A calculation of the remaining strength of the pipe shows an operating pressure\nthat is less than the current established maximum operating pressure at the location\nof the anomaly. Suitable remaining strength calculation methods include, but are not\nlimited to, ASME/ANSI B31G and PRCI PR-3-805 (R-STRENG).\n(E) An area of general corrosion with a predicted metal loss greater than 50% of\nnominal wall.\n(F) Predicted metal loss greater than 50% of nominal wall that is located at a\ncrossing of another pipeline, or is in an area with widespread circumferential\ncorrosion, or is in an area that could affect a girth weld.\n(G) A potential crack indication that when excavated is determined to be a crack.\n(H) Corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld.\n(I) A gouge or groove greater than 12.5% of nominal wall.\n(iv) Other conditions. In addition to the conditions listed in paragraphs (h)(4)(i)\nthrough (iii) of this section, an operator must evaluate any condition identified by an\nintegrity assessment or information analysis that could impair the integrity of the\npipeline, and as appropriate, schedule the condition for remediation. Appendix C of\nthis part contains guidance concerning other conditions that an operator should\nevaluate.\nSection D2 of Duke Energy Procedure GD75.06-017, titled “Pipeline Evaluation and\nRemediation,” and Procedure GD75.06-018, titled “Schedule of Repair Requirements\n(Time Lines),” include descriptions of repair conditions that are not consistent with\n§ 195.452(h)(4). Section D2 of Procedure GD75.06-017 specifies that § 195.452(h)(4)\ndefines repair conditions, and Duke Energy’s Integrity Management (IM) Program\nprocedures reference the correct definitions from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).\nProcedure GD75.06-017, however, does not consistently define repair conditions as\n3\n\n\n\ndelineated by the regulations. A comparison of various CFR definitions to those\nincorporated in Duke Energy Procedure GD75.06-017 is included below.\n§195.452(h)(4) GD75.06-017\nAn operator must treat the following\nImmediate Repair Conditions – Indication\nconditions as immediate repair conditions:\nshows that defect is at failure point.\n(A) Metal loss greater than 80% of\nnominal wall regardless of dimensions.\n(B) A calculation of the remaining\nstrength of the pipe shows a predicted\nburst pressure less than the established\nmaximum operating pressure at the\nlocation of the anomaly. Suitable\nremaining strength calculation methods\ninclude, but are not limited to,\nASME/ANSI B31G (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3) and PRCI PR-3-805\n(R-STRENG) (incorporated by reference,\nsee §195.3).\n(C) A dent located on the top of the\npipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock\npositions) that has any indication of metal\nloss, cracking or a stress riser.\n(D) A dent located on the top of the\npipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock\npositions) with a depth greater than 6% of\nthe nominal pipe diameter.\n(E) An anomaly that in the judgment of\nthe person designated by the operator to\nevaluate the assessment results requires\nimmediate action.\n(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the\nfollowing conditions within 60 days of\ndiscovery of condition.\n(A) A dent located on the top of the\npipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock\npositions) with a depth greater than 3% of\nthe pipeline diameter (greater than 0.250\ninches in depth for a pipeline diameter less\nthan Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 12).\n(B) A dent located on the bottom of the\npipeline that has any indication of metal\nloss, cracking or a stress riser.\n(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for Scheduled/60 day Remediation –\nIndication shows defect significant but not\nat failure point.\nScheduled/180 day Remediation –\n4\n\n\n\nconditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or\n(ii) of this section, an operator must\nschedule evaluation and remediation of the\nfollowing within 180 days of discovery of\nthe condition:\n(A) A dent with a depth greater than 2% of\nthe pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in\ndepth for a pipeline diameter less than\nNPS 12) that affects pipe curvature at a\ngirth weld or a longitudinal seam weld.\n(B) A dent located on the top of the\npipeline (above 4 and 8 o'clock position)\nwith a depth greater than 2% of the\npipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in depth\nfor a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12).\n(C) A dent located on the bottom of the\npipeline with a depth greater than 6% of\nthe pipeline's diameter.\n(D) A calculation of the remaining\nstrength of the pipe shows an operating\npressure that is less than the current\nestablished maximum operating pressure\nat the location of the anomaly. Suitable\nremaining strength calculation methods\ninclude, but are not limited to,\nASME/ANSI B31G and PRCI PR-3-805\n(R-STRENG).\n(E) An area of general corrosion with a\npredicted metal loss greater than 50% of\nnominal wall.\n(F) Predicted metal loss greater than 50%\nof nominal wall that is located at a\ncrossing of another pipeline, or is in an\narea with widespread circumferential\ncorrosion, or is in an area that could affect\na girth weld.\n(G) A potential crack indication that when\nexcavated is determined to be a crack.\n(H) Corrosion of or along a longitudinal\nseam weld.\n(I) A gouge or groove greater than 12.5%\nof nominal wall\nIndication shows defect significant but not\nnear failure point.\n(iv) Other conditions. In addition to the\nconditions listed in paragraphs (h)(4)(i)\nthrough (iii) of this section, an operator\nmust evaluate any condition identified by\nOther Conditions – Indication shows\ndefect will not fail before next inspection.\n5\n\n\n\n4. an integrity assessment or information\nanalysis that could impair the integrity of\nthe pipeline, and as appropriate, schedule\nthe condition for remediation. Appendix C\nof this part contains guidance concerning\nother conditions that an operator should\nevaluate.\n§195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n. . . (j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a\npipeline's integrity?\n. . . (5) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by\nany of the following methods. The methods an operator selects to assess low\nfrequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to\nlongitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of\ndetecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.\n. . . (iv) Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent\nunderstanding of the condition of the line pipe. An operator choosing this option\nmust notify OPS 90 days before conducting the assessment, by sending a notice to the\naddress or facsimile number specified in paragraph (m) of this section.\nDuke Energy Procedure GD70.06-006, titled “Assessment Methods Selection Process\nFlowchart,” dated December 20, 2012, allows for the use of Internal Corrosion Direct\nAssessment (ICDA) on hazardous liquid pipelines without including the requirement to\nnotify OPS 90 days before conducting this Other Technology assessment, as required by\n§ 195.452(j)(5)(iv). Furthermore, the referenced flowchart was confusing in that\ncomponent ordering arrows and decision point diamonds are aligned in the wrong\ndirection, or direct the user to an inappropriate decision point.\nMoreover, the above-referenced procedure and included flowchart do not adequately\ndistinguish between Parts 192 and 195’s assessment method selection requirements. The\nflowchart applies to both hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines (§195.452 and\nPart 192 Subpart O, respectively). On November 16, 2011, PHMSA issued a Letter of\nConcern to Duke Energy expressing concerns that Duke Energy was not “differentiating\nbetween Parts 192 and 195” in its procedures (Duke Energy Kentucky, CPF 2-2011-\n6008C, Letter of Concern, November 16, 2011). The letter expressed PHMSA’s hope\nthat Duke Energy would improve its pipeline safety program based on these concerns. As\nof PHMSA’s 2017 inspection, Duke Energy had not addressed the referenced concerns.\n6\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed\nas part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in\nthis Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as\nalleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing\nAmendment. If your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you\nmay be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies\n(49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your\namended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be\nextended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have\nbeen addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Duke Energy maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures) and submit the total to James Urisko, Director, Southern Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this\nmatter, please refer to CPF 2-2018-6003M and, for each document you submit, please\nprovide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n7\n\n220186003M_Closure Letter_10252019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 25, 2019\nMs. Lynn J. Good\nChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer\nDuke Energy Kentucky, Inc.\n139 East Fourth Street, Mail Drop EX403\nCincinnati, OH, 45202\nCPF 2-2018-6003M\nDear Ms. Good:\nBetween July 31,2017 and September 21, 2017, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. (Duke) records in\nDuke’s Cincinnati, Ohio and Erlanger, Kentucky offices. PHMSA personnel also inspected Duke\nfacilities in Kenton County, Kentucky. As a result of the inspection, PHMSA issued a Notice of\nAmendment (NOA), dated May 15, 2018.\nIn response to the NOA, Duke made multiple submittals to OPS Southern Region, with a final\nwritten response dated October 15, 2018. OPS personnel conducted a follow-up conference call\non October 24, 2019. Based on our review of these responses, we have determined that Duke\nhas complied with the terms of the NOA. This case is now closed and no further action is\nnecessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the referenced NOA (CPF 2-2018-6003M) and not\nto any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":19874}