Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ky-2016-gas-program-evaluation
2016 KY NG Program Evaluation - ky-2016-gas-program-evaluation (Kentucky; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ky-2016-gas-program-evaluation
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation for KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- Program Performance D -- Compliance Activities E -- Incident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 22016 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2016 Gas State Agency: Kentucky Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 05/08/2017 - 05/12/2017 Agency Representative: James D. Rice, Assistant Director of Engineering Bill Aitken, Utility Regulatory & Safety Investigator IV Mark McCullough, Utility Regulator & Safety Inspector II PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, USDOT/State Programs Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Michael J. Schmitt, Chairman Agency: Kentucky Public Service Commission Address: 211 Sower Boulevard City/State/Zip: Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-0615 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2016 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 47 46 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 11 11 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 116 115 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.1 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A review of Attachment 1 found the information correct. No issues. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: A review of Attachment 2 found information correct. Forty-one drug and alcohol inspections were performed. Total number of inspections are less than previous year. No issues. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Compared Attachment 3, List of Operators, to Kentucky Public Service Commission database. Information is correct and no area of concerns. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, one incident occurred at Mayslick, KY. The operator was Flemingsburg Utilities System. This incident was investigated by KY PSC staff members and violations were found. KY PSC has scheduled a hearing with Flemingsburg Utilities System on June 13, 2017. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues with Attachment 5, Stats on Compliance Actions, is correct. The oldest carryover violations date back to March 9, 2015. Each carryover violations is being monitored by performing a follow-up inspection. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, files, office records and database were well-organized and available. No areas of concern. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A review of training records in SABA found six inspectors have completed the required seven courses for Gas Inspector. Three inspectors have completed the Root Cause course. Four inspectors have completed the DIMP & Gas IM training requirement courses. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 4KY PSC has automatic adoption of federal pipeline safety regulations per KY State Statute 278.992, section 1. No issues. 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in 1 1 detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes. a review of Attachment 10 found information pertaining to the nine elements and planned and past performance were addressed correctly. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 2 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found under III Inspection Format, Section A information on pre- inspection activities; Section B contains information on the inspection activities and IV Inspection Report; Section A contains the post-inspection activities. These items are located on pages 7-9. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found under III Inspection Format, Section A information on pre- inspection activities; Section B contains information on the inspection activities and IV Inspection Report; Section A contains the post-inspection activities. These items are located on pages 7-9. 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found under III Inspection Format, Section A information on pre- inspection activities; Section B contains information on the inspection activities and IV Inspection Report; Section A contains the post-inspection activities. These items are located on pages 7-9. 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 1 1 insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post- inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found under III Inspection Format, Section A information on pre- inspection activities; Section B contains information on the inspection activities and IV Inspection Report; Section A contains the post-inspection activities. These items are located on pages 7-9. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is listed under KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual Section IX, Schools and Training. 1 1 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found under III Inspection Format, Section A information on pre- inspection activities; Section B contains information on the inspection activities and IV Inspection Report; Section A contains the post-inspection activities. These items are located on pages 7-9.DUNS: 098099674 Kentucky 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 67 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Yes No Needs Improvement Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, these items are listed in KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual on page 6, Section II, Development of Inspection Schedule. All inspection units are broken down correctly. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in a review of this section. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? (Director of State Programs may modify with just cause) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 540.25 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 4.50 = 990.00 Ratio: A / B 540.25 / 990.00 = 0.55 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: A.Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2)= 540.25 B.Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the program(220*Number of Inspection person years(Attachment 7)=990 Formula:- Ratio = A/B = 540.25/990 = 0.55 Rule:- (If Ratio >=.38 then points = 5 else Points = 0.) Thus Points = 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, KY PSC has six inspectors who have completed mandatory training for Gas Inspector Training Requirements. Four inspectors have completed the Gas IM & DIMP training requirements. Three inspectors have completed the root cause training course. All inspectors attended the Pipeline Awareness for Excavator Operations Meeting sponsored by Paradigm. All inspectors have obtained the minimum qualifications to be the lead inspector on Standard & OQ inspections. Steven Samples is the lead on DIMP and Bill Aitken is the lead on TIMP. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, James Rice has completed all TQ core courses. He has demonstrated knowledge about the pipeline safety regulations and pipeline safety program certification filings. Mr. Rice was recently promoted into the Pipeline Safety Program as the full time Program Manager. 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct 2 2 or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Chairman Michael Schmitt response letter to Zach Barrett was received on December 9, 2016 and within the 60 day time requirement. 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 1 1 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 8Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, KY PSC hosted a pipeline safety seminar on September 20-21, 2016 in Bowling Green, KY at the Holiday Inn University Plaza. Approximately, 122 individuals attended the seminar. 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of files and database found all operators and inspection units were inspected in accordance to KY PSC written procedures within 5 years. No areas of concern. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 2 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, KY PSC continues to use the federal inspection forms for all operators except Master Meter systems. They have a separate form which was developed from the federal distribution standard inspection form by eliminating portions that do not apply to Master Meter pipeline facilities. No areas of concern. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was 1 1 examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item is listed in the federal standard inspection document. Currently, Louisville Gas & Electric has 37 miles of cast iron, Columbia Gas 12 miles of cast iron and City of Fulton 3 miles of cast iron. Total miles of cast iron in the State of Kentucky are 52 miles. No areas of concern. 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including 1 1 appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item continues to be reviewed and checked annually by KY PSC inspectors during their audits. Additionally, this item is listed in the supplemental questions section of the federal standard inspection form they use. 10 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 1 1 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes, this is accomplished via the standard inspection form and pre-inspection activities performed by the inspector. DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 912 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, each inspector prior to conducting an inspection reviews and conducts a trend analysis of the information contained in the operator's annual reports. This information is discussed with the operator and used in KY PSC rank risk inspection visits. No issues. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, DIMP/IMP inspection results into federal database in a 2 1 timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A review of OQ & IMP federal database found not all OQ inspections were uploaded into the database for CY2016. Therefore, a loss of one point occurred. 14 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item is reviewed with the operator and located on the supplemental inspection form list. 1 1 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is reviewed on each standard inspection audit. 2 2 16 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is reviewed during the standard inspection audit. 2 2 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is reviewed and checked during the standard inspection audit. 2 2 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? 2 2 This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P DIMP ? First round of program inspections should have been complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, all DIMP inspections are performed every three years. All inspections have been completed. A review of the DIMP plan is discussed with the operator during a standard inspection audit.DUNS: 098099674 Kentucky 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 1019 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being 2 2 followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should have been completed by December 2013. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 192.616 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, all Public Awareness programs are reviewed during the standard inspection audit. All PAPEI inspections were completed in CY2014. 20 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is accomplished via the Kentucky Gas Association and KY PSC website. 1 1 21 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No safety related condition reports in CY2016. 1 NA 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is item is listed on KY PSC supplemental inspection question list and reviewed with the operator during the audit review. 23 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or 1 1 PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Manager, in CY2016. Yes, a reviewed of emails found 13 responses were provided by James Rice to Robert Clarillos, NAPSR Administrative 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: NA 1 NA 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, James Rice attended the 2016 NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in Indianapolis, IN. 1 1 26 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 2 2 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 11a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. A review of state program performance metrics website found the information has not been updated for CY2016. We reviewed the number of leaks repaired per 1,000 miles and determined the operator's annual report will need to be reviewed to determine if leaks repaired have a downward or upward trend. 27 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Info Only Info Only Inspection Day Calculation Tool. (No points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Reviewed the State Inspection Day Calculation tool with Program Manager and found the number of inspection person days for each operator was similar to the actual performed for calendar year 2016. The total number submitted in the SIDCT was 548 days. Program Manager will make changes to Louisville Gas and Electric, Atmos Energy, Duke Energy, Columbia Gas of KY and Delta Natural Gas when the tool is open for changes. 28 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Info Only Info Only Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 (No Points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: N/A 29 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A loss of one point occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 46 Total possible points for this section: 47 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, a. & b. Information is located in KY PSC Procedure Manual on page 9-10. The procedures require correspondence to be sent to the company officer/owner when a noncompliance is found. KY PSC provides the operators an opportunity to response to alleged probable violations within 30 days. The procedures states all follow up inspections may be scheduled after written notification of non-compliance has been sent to the operator. Deficiency information is entered into the inspection database which can be used to report the status of probable violations. c. Procedures to close an outstanding violation is included in the letter to the operator and performed by the program manager. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 4 document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Document probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement c. Resolve probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement e. Were applicable civil penalties outlined in correspondence with operator(s) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, a review of KY PSC database for CY2016 found compliance letters were sent to company officer or manager. b-d Yes, probable violations are documented, resolved and routinely entered into the KY PSC database program weekly. A review of this information is performed by the program manager and inspectors. e. No, civil penalties were not included in correspondence to operators. Improvement is needed to include the civil penalty amounts in all letters to the operator either in compliance or non-compliance. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: sent to the operator. Yes, a review of the 2016 "Deficiency Spreadsheet" found twenty two probable violations were issued and follow-up letters 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show 2 2 cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of compliance action letters found the operator is provided due time and process in responding to the violation (s) prior to be referred to legal division for a show cause hearing. 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, Program Manager is familiar with the process of imposing civil penalties and has taken action in the past in imposing a DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 13civil penalty. Currently, four cases are pending before the Commissioners on imposing a civil penalty or other action against the operators. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a civil penalty of $1,000 was assessed against Duke Energy, Case Number 201400263 in CY2015. 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item is located in KY PSC Procedures Manual under VI. Incident Investigation page 12. 2 2 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 incidents, including after-hours reports? And did state keep adequate records of Incident/ Accident notifications received? Chapter 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Acknowledgement of MOU between NTSB and PHMSA (Appendix D) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Acknowledgement of Federal/State Cooperation in case of incident/accident (Appendix E) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, all telephonic notifications from operators are recorded and provided in an email message to KY PSC Commissioners, Program Manager, Inspectors and others. The decision to response and investigate the incident is rendered by the Program Manager. A review of KP PSC records found all reportable telephonic incidents are logged into a KY PSC Inspection Reporting System database. a. & b. Yes, Program Manager and Inspector are familiar and have read the MOU and understanding the Federal/State Cooperation in cases of incident/accident. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A verification of KY PSC written procedures provided direction on when an onsite investigation must be conducted. Additionally, the procedures provided direction on how to record the reason to not go to the site and place the information in the file folder of the incident. 4 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of the Flemingsburg Utilities System incident that occurred in Mayslick, KY found the observations and contributing factors to the incident were well documented in the report. KY PSC found workers were using an electric driven tool to make a repair on a gas leak. This results in an injury to one individual. This incident is currently being reviewed by KY PSC and consideration of assessing a civil penalty against the operator. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident 1 1 investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, compliance action has been taken against Flemingsburg Utilities System pertaining to the incident that occurred in Mayslick, KY. In this regard, a show cause order has been issued and a hearing is anticipated to be conducted on June 13, 2017. DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 156 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, James Rice has contacted Chris Taylor, PHMSA Southern Region, pertaining to incident reports. 1 1 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: 1 1 at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, information about the Mayslick, KY incident was presented at the 2017 NAPSR Southern Region Meeting in Savannah, GA. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 16PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or 2 2 its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is listed in KY PSC supplemental inspection questions to the operators and reviewed with them during a standard and construction inspections. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is addressed in the supplemental questions listed in the inspection form. 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground facilities to its regulated companies? (i.e. such as promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices encouraging adoption of the 9 Elements, etc.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is addressed in the supplemental question listed in the inspection form. 2 2 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is monitoring during KY PSC review of the annual operator reports. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Columbia Gas of Kentucky Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Mark McCullough, Utility Regulatory & Safety Investigator II Location of Inspection: Lexington, KY Date of Inspection: May 9, 2017 Name of PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, State Evaluator Evaluator Notes: This is was a construction inspection of Columbia Gas of Kentucky project located on Midway Industrial Park, Lexington, KY. The following company personnel were present: Larry Brown, Construction Coordinator, Doug Kinder, Construction Specialist and Jim Colyer, M & R Leader. The proposed project consisted of 27,500" of 6" & 8" High Density Pipe to serve the Midway Industrial Park. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Columbia Gas of Kentucky representatives were contacted on Tuesday, May 4th by James Rice and Mark McCullough. 3 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, KY PSC Form-Construction Project Observation Summary was used. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mark McCullough, observed the Team Fishels foreman Will Terrell and James Gamble make two 6" butt welds. Each individual was experienced and used the timing and sight method to make their fusions. No issues or violations were noted or found. Mark McCullough conducted a very professional inspection. 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, verification of equipment, procedures and welding cards were checked. 1 1 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 18Yes. 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and 2 2 regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mark McCullough has completed all core training courses at TQ, was previously employed with Columbia Gas of KY and demonstrated a working knowledge and experience in pipeline construction. 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the exit interview was conducted at the end of the day. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No violations or areas of concern were found or noted. 1 1 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs Info Only Info Only DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 19B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Observed Mark McCullough inspecting Columbia Gas of KY (CKY) construction project along Midway Industrial Park. CKY inspectors showed the proposed plans and scope of the project. Information about the proposed tie in and proposed regulators, heater and telemetering was discussed along with a site visit to the area. Additionally, observation of two 6" butt welds and verification of OQ records were noted during this inspection. No areas of concern were noted and Mark McCullough was very thorough in his review of records and documentation provided by CKY. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 20PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 4 Were probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: N/A Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: N/A Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 21PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 3 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: N/A Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: N/A Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 098099674 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.