{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52021026WL","title":"K O TRANSMISSION COMPANY — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2021-06-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.631(c)(1), 192.631(e)(2), 192.631(e)(3), 192.631(e)(4), 192.631(f)(1), 192.631(h), 192.631(h)(1), 192.631(j)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52021026wl.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52021026wl.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52021026wl","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52021026WL","body":"Warning Letter involving K O TRANSMISSION COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.631(c)(1),  192.631(e)(2),  192.631(e)(3),  192.631(e)(4),  192.631(f)(1),  192.631(h),  192.631(h)(1),  192.631(j)(1). The case was opened on 2021-06-11 and is reported as closed as of 2021-06-11. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52021026WL_Warning Letter_06112021_(20-177378).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021026WL/52021026WL_Warning%20Letter_06112021_(20-177378).pdf\n\n52021026WL_Warning Letter_06112021_(20-177378)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021026WL/52021026WL_Warning%20Letter_06112021_(20-177378)_text.pdf\n\n52021026WL_Warning Letter_06112021_(20-177378)_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nVIA E-MAIL TO MR. BRIAN WEISKER\nJune 11, 2021\nMr. Brian Weisker\nSenior Vice President & COO Natural Gas\nDuke Energy\n4720 Piedmont Row\nCharlotte, NC 28210\nCPF 5-2021-026-WL\nDear Mr. Weisker:\nDuring the week of October 19 through 23, 2020, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), performed a virtual inspection of Duke Energy's (Duke) KO Transmission Control\nRoom located in Charlotte, North Carolina. This inspection included a review of company\nprocedures and records, and virtual observations associated with the Control Room Management\nProgram.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with\nthe information, tools, processes and procedures necessary for the controllers to\ncarry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each\nof the following:\n\n\n\n(1) Implement sections 1, 4, 8, 9, 11.1, and 11.3 of API RP 1165 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) whenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced,\nunless the operator demonstrates that certain provisions of sections 1, 4, 8, 9, 11.1,\nand 11.3 of API RP 1165 are not practical for the SCADA system used;\nDuke Energy failed to implement API RP 1165 Sections 1, 4, 8, 9, 11.1 and 11.3 whenever a\nSCADA system is added, expanded, or replaced, nor did the company demonstrate that certain\nprovisions of these sections are not practical for the SCADA system used in violation of §\n192.631(c)(1). During the PHMSA inspection, Duke could not produce any records, such as\nvalidation studies or audits, to demonstrate that their SCADA system was in compliance with the\napplicable API RP 1165 sections.1\n2. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written\nalarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An\noperator’s plan must include provisions to:\n(1) …\n(2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been\ntaken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false\nalarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that\nrequired for associated maintenance or operating activities;\nDuke failed to identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been\ntaken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or had\nforced or manual valves for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance\nor operating activity in violation of § 192.631(e)(2). Specifically, during the PHMSA inspection,\nthe company could not produce records demonstrating that it had identified false alarms for May\n2017, September 2018, and February 2019.2 Additionally, the records for 2017 and 2018\nindicate a review of \"VIS GC Alarms, Chat 3 in 5 mins\" which was not included in the 2019\nrecord.\n3. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written\nalarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An\noperator’s plan must include provisions to:\n(1) …\n1 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(j)(1) requiring operators to maintain for review during inspection records that\ndemonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section.\n2 Id.\n2\n\n\n\n(3) Verify the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions at\nleast once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;\nDuke failed to verify the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions at\nleast once each calendar month, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, in violation of §\n192.631(e)(3).3 Although Duke provided its 2017 Alarm Set Point Review during the inspection,\nit did not include a full date so compliance could not be determined. Additional rationalization\nrecords for the Charlotte and Anderson areas were reviewed, but the dates of the reviews were\nnot documented and the records failed to have any signatures. Finally, Duke failed to provide\nrecords for 2018 and 2019.\n4. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written\nalarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. An\noperator’s plan must include provisions to:\n(1) …\n(4) Review the alarm management plan required by this paragraph at least once\neach calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine the\neffectiveness of the plan;\nDuke failed to review its alarm management plan at the requisite intervals in violation of §\n192.631(e)(4). During the review of the records of the Alarm Management Plan (Plan), Duke\npersonnel stated to PHMSA that there is not a separate document that records the review of the\nAlarm Management Plan, but rather the review is recorded on page 2 of the Plan. Page 2 of the\nPlan, however, is just a revision page and fails to clearly demonstrate that a review of the entire\nPlan has occurred.\nPage 2 identifies February 16, 2017,4 May 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019 as review dates. (Duke\nfailed to provide a record for the annual review for 2016.) The records for these years failed to\ninclude documentation of who reviewed the plan, signatures of who approved the plan review, or\nthe approval date of the completed review pursuant to Duke’s Alarm Management Plan CRM\n1090 procedure (effective date September 2, 2020), at Section 8 and Table 4. It also lacked\ndocumentation that these revisions were implemented. For example, the revision page notes that\n“[c]hanges on hold for pending integration\" for both revisions 1.15 and 1.16.\n3 According to Duke’s control room staff, the company has approximately 5,000 points to review, which takes an\nestimated month to complete.\n4 Additionally, the document provided and titled “Alarm Management Plan 2017” has a revision number 1.13, with\na revision date of 2/16/2017, which fails to match the revision date for revision 1.13, found on Page 2 of the Plan.\n3\n\n\n\n5. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that could affect\ncontrol room operations are coordinated with the control room personnel by\nperforming each of the following:\n(1) Establish communications between control room representatives, operator’s\nmanagement, and associated field personnel when planning and implementing\nphysical changes to pipeline equipment or configuration;\nDuke failed to assure that changes that could affect control room operations are coordinated with\ncontrol room personnel by establishing communications between control room representatives,\noperator’s management, and associated field personnel when planning and implementing\nphysical changes to pipeline equipment or configuration in violation of § 192.631(f)(1). During\nthe inspection, Duke provided an electronic calendar invite as a record to demonstrate that\ncommunications with control room personnel were established to meet this requirement.\nHowever, a calendar invite fails to demonstrate that appropriate control room representatives,\noperator management, and associated field personnel attended, only that they were invited. Duke\nEnergy could not provide records to demonstrate compliance with this regulation.5\n6. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program and review\nthe training program content to identify potential improvements at least once each\ncalendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months…\nDuke failed to review its training program content to identify potential improvements at least\nonce each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, in violation of § 192.631(h).\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, Duke was unable to provide any records for 2017, 2018, and\n2019 to demonstrate that the company reviewed the contents of its training program to identify\npotential improvements.6\n7. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program and review\nthe training program content to identify potential improvements at least once each\ncalendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months. An operator’s program\nmust provide for training each controller to carry out the roles and responsibilities\n5 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(j)(1) requiring operators to maintain for review during inspection records that\ndemonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section.\n6 Id.\n4\n\n\n\ndefined by the operator. In addition, the training program must include the\nfollowing elements:\n(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or\nin sequence;\nDuke failed to establish a controller training program that included responding to abnormal\noperating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence at the requisite intervals.\nSpecifically, during the PHMSA inspection, Duke failed to provide any records or other\ndocumentation to indicate that controllers are trained pursuant to this regulation.7\n8. § 192.631 - Control room management.\n(a) …\ninspection:\n(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review during\n(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this section; and\nDuke failed to maintain for review during inspection, records that demonstrated compliance with\nthe requirements of § 192.631. In general, Duke’s record-keeping was found to be chaotic\nwithout any real organization. While PHMSA understands the difficulty of mergers, record\nkeeping is a core responsibility for compliance. To that end, records must be sufficiently detailed\nto demonstrate compliance.\nDuring the inspection, Duke personnel verbally stated that records are on company laptop hard\ndrives. Compliance records should never be stored on a laptop hard drive unless hard drives are\nroutinely required to be back-upped to company servers. The operator failed to ensure that\nelectronic records were properly stored and safeguarded.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July 31, 2019 and before January\n11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation\npersists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may\nnot exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679.\nFor violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not\nto exceed $2,090,022.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nDuke Energy being subject to additional enforcement action.\n7 Id.\n5\n\n\n\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 5-2021-026-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 D. Fehling (#20-177378)\n6","truncated":false,"body_characters":13242}