Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ky-2017-gas-program-evaluation
2017 KY NG Program Evaluation - ky-2017-gas-program-evaluation (Kentucky; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ky-2017-gas-program-evaluation
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2017 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 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 22017 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2017 Gas State Agency: Kentucky Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 06/25/2018 - 06/29/2018 Agency Representative: Mr. James D. Rice, Pipeline Safety Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. 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 2017 (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 48 48 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 117 117 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: A1. Yes. Attachment 1 is correct and is consistent with attachment 3 and attachment 8. I encouraged James to double check on Distribution for LPG & Other; he likely has 60105 authority over them. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: A2. Yes. Conducted a review of the 2017 KPSC Progress Report and found the number of inspection days entered matched the office files. No issues were found. 522 inspection days 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: A3. Yes. Verified the number of operators and inspection units on Attachment 3 matched the office records maintained by Kentucky Public Service Commission (KPSC). 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: A4. Yes. Verified that there was one reportable incident in 2017. At this point it is likely to be declared non-jurisdictional. The investigation is on-going. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A5. Yes. Reviewed Attachment 5, okay. I recommended that corrective actions that were taken in lieu of some of the fines be noted in 'Attachment 5 notes'. $165K assessed with $15K collected gives one impression; a $55K boring job done immediately to address a problem and receive a $60K fine forgiveness would provide additional insight. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A6. Yes, files, office records and database were well-organized and available. All files are now electronic. No areas of concern. 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: A7. Yes, but with comment. 1 of 1 point, the 25% time for John B Park is an estimated number. James will correct Attachment 7 to show John's actual time, (27.7%), as shown in his payroll reports, and will commit to reporting actual time in the future. 4.83 inspector years with 7 staff. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 4Evaluator Notes: issues. A8. Yes. KPSC has automatic adoption of federal pipeline safety regulations per KY State Statute 278.992, section 1. No 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 A9. Yes. Attachment 10 was properly completed. 10 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A10. No loss of points occurred in this section. 3 Sr Inspectors retired in 2017 but KPSC acted proactively and quickly filled all vacancies. Hard work from the remaining staff resulted in all critical inspections being performed. All remaining records went paperless in 2017. Made Refinement and enhancement of the inspections tracking system. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: B1. Yes. a review of KPSC 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: B2. Yes, a review of KPSC 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: B3. Yes, a review of KPSC 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: B4. Yes, a review of KPSC 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: B5. Yes, this is listed under KPSC 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: B6. Yes, a review of KPSC 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 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: B7. Yes*6, these items are listed in KPSC 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 Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: B8. No loss of points occurred in this section. James reports that SOP were added to the Procedures in 2017. Credit to Glynn Blanton for help in improving the Procedures in 2015 & 2016. New inspectors are using the procedures as a resource. The Procedures are a living and improving document. Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 522.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 4.83 = 1063.33 Ratio: A / B 522.00 / 1063.33 = 0.49 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: C1. Yes. 522 Field inspector days, 4.83 inspector years, 522/(4.83*220)=0.491 okay. 5 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: C2. Yes*5. Yes, KPSC 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: C3. 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 or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: C4. Yes, Chairman Michael Schmitt's response letter to Zach Barrett was sent on July 17, 2017 and was within the 60 day time requirement of the Chairman letter dated May 23, 2017. 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 1 1 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C5. Yes, KPSC 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. DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 86 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: C6. Yes, a review of files and database found all operators and inspection units were inspected in accordance to KPSC 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: C7. Yes, KPSC 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: C8. Yes, this item is listed in the federal standard inspection document. Currently, Louisville Gas & Electric has 0 miles of cast iron, (37 miles removed in 2017!) Columbia Gas 9.7 miles of cast iron and City of Fulton 3 miles of cast iron. Total miles of cast iron in the State of Kentucky are 12.7 miles. No areas of concern. Columbia Gas is on a program to replace ALL remaining Cast Iron by 2022. 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: C9. Yes, this item continues to be reviewed and checked annually by KPSC 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: C10. Yes. Question is part of all Standard Inspections. 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 C11. Yes, this is accomplished via the standard inspection form and pre-inspection activities performed by the inspector. 12 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 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 9C12. 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 KPSC rank risk inspection visits. No issues. 13 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: C13. Yes, this item is reviewed with the operator and located on the supplemental inspection form list. 1 1 14 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 2 2 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: C14. Yes, the short form D&A, (form 14) is reviewed on each standard inspection audit. I reminded James of the Long Form D&A insp, Form 3.1.11 revised 2017, and he will start scheduling them immediately. 15 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: C15. Yes, this is reviewed during the standard inspection audit. 2 2 16 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? Are replies to Operator IM notifications addressed? (formerly part of Question C-13)). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C16. Yes, this is reviewed and checked during the standard inspection audit. 2 2 17 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 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C17. 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. 18 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 be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 192.616 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C18. Yes, all Public Awareness programs are reviewed during the standard inspection audit. All PAPEI inspections were completed in CY2014. DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 1019 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: 1 1 C19. Yes, this is accomplished via the Kentucky Gas Association and KPSC website. 20 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) 1 1 Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: C20. Yes. There was a SRC in 2017, the first one since 2015, It was monitored closely until it was closed on 11/1/17. The operator was very cooperative. 21 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: C21. Yes, this is item is listed on KPSC supplemental inspection question list and reviewed with the operator during the audit review. 22 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 CY2017. C22. Yes, a review of emails found 6 responses were provided by James Rice to Robert Clarillos, NAPSR Administrative 23 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: C23. NA. There have been no waivers/special permits granted in KY. 1 NA 24 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: C24. Yes, James Rice attended the 2017 Nat'l NAPSR in Columbus, Ohio. 1 1 25 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. 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: C25. Yes. KPSC closely monitors all 6 performance measures: Damage Prevention Program, Inspection Activity, Inspector Qualification, Leak Management, Enforcement, and Incident Investigation. The pipeline safety staff documented a meeting conducted on 5/1/17 reviewing the KPSC's performance metrics consisting of the damage prevention program, inspection activity, inspector qualification, leak management, enforcement and incident investigations. Even though the leaks per miles were indicating a downward trend, a closer review of the operator's annual report and in-depth review of leak surveys still needed to be conducted to continue this trend. Staff needs to also look at the operator's line hits and discuss causes and what DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 11actions the operators are taking to reduce damages such as promoting 811, contractor awareness and are they billing excavators for cost of repairs. 26 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State 1 1 Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) Has the State updated SICT data? No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: C26. Yes. James reviewed the State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) with Rex Evans in November 2017. Collaborative re-running of the program resulted in an Inspection Day calculation of 512 days. All parties were satisfied with the 512 day requirement. KPSC had 522 days of inspection in 2017. 27 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: C27. Yes. KPSC is prepared to address inspection of flow reversals. No known flow reversals in KY. 1 1 28 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: duties. Info Only Info Only C28. No loss of points occurred in this section. KPSC is adequately staffed. KPSC expects to stay current in its inspection Total points scored for this section: 48 Total possible points for this section: 48 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: D1. Yes*3. a. & b. Information is located in KPSC Procedure Manual on page 9-10. The procedures require correspondence to be sent to the company officer/owner when a noncompliance is found. KPSC 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. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility inspected outlining any concerns; and Yes No Needs Improvement f. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: D2. Yes*6. Yes, a review of KPSC database for CY2017 found compliance letters were sent to company officer or manager. b-d Yes, probable violations are documented, resolved and routinely entered into the KPSC database program weekly. A review of this information is performed by the program manager and inspectors. e. yes, civil penalty statements for cited violations are included in correspondence to operators; f. yes, the latest letter sent was 83 days after the inspection, most letters were sent within 10 days, 101 of 113 letters were sent out in 12 days or less. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: operators. D3. Yes, a review of the 2017 "Deficiency Spreadsheet" found 52 probable violations were described in 18 letters sent to the 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: D4. 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: DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 13D5. Yes, civil penalties are considered and are used frequently in accordance with a penalty matrix. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 1 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: D6. Yes, civil penalties were assessed and collected in 2017, some fines were reduced by Commission action, and some fines were reduced due to corrective actions. 7 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: D7. No loss of points occurred. KPSC has generally met the requirements of Part D. KPSC has effective monitoring spreadsheets to track compliance actions. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: E1. Yes, this item is located in KPSC 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: E2. Yes, all telephonic notifications from operators are recorded and provided in an email message to KPSC Commissioners, Program Manager, Inspectors and others. The decision to response and investigate the incident is rendered by the Program Manager. A review of KPSC records found all reportable telephonic incidents are logged into a KPSC 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: E3. A verification of KPSC 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: E4. Yes*3. The reportable Incident was investigated and documented. The investigation is on-going. On-site visits were made. Ample documentation is in the file. Federal Form 11, Pipeline Failure Investigation, was used. This incident may go away; it is almost certain that the incident occurred on non-jurisdictional pipe. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: E5. Yes. no violations have been found relative to the reportable incident. The investigation is on-going. 1 1 6 Did the state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) 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: DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 15E6. Yes. Good communications with Southern Region and the AID. The AID contact was Gery Bauman concerning the reportable incident. Numerous contacts were made with Gery and also Brian Pierzina with AID. 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 E7. Yes, at the NAPSR Southern Region Meeting and also during the Pipeline Safety Seminars. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: E8. No loss of points occurred. KPSC has generally met the requirements of Part E. KPSC response to the reportable incident was detailed and timely. Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: F1. Yes, this is listed in KPSC supplemental inspection questions to the operators and reviewed with them during a standard and construction inspections. 2 Did the state inspector verify pipeline operators are following their 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: F2. 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: F3. 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: F4. Yes, this is monitored during KPSC review of the annual operator reports. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: F5. No loss of points occurred in this Section. KPSC has generally met the requirements of Part F. In 2017 operators were required to contact the KPSC by phone and by email for reportable incidents. The phone recording and the email concerning the reportable incident was successfully forwarded to all KPSC designated parties as designed. KPSC is pleased with this IT success. Introduced legislation in the 2018 General Session to address the Damage Prevention inadequacy letter received by PHMSA dated 3/13/17 (The bill passed in 2018 with enforcement authority given to K PSC that will go into effect July 14, 2018.) Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: ATMOS Energy, opid 22476, Danville Service Area Unit Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Melissa Holbrook, Inspector, James Rice & David Nash also in attendance Location of Inspection: Atmos Energy office at 449 Whirlaway Dr., Danville, KY 40422 Date of Inspection: 6/27/2018 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Evaluator Notes: G1. ATMOS Energy, opid 22476, Danville Service Area Unit, Melissa Holbrook, Inspector, James Rice & David Nash also in attendance. Atmos Energy office at 449 Whirlaway Dr., Danville, KY 40422, 6/27/2018, Patrick Gaume 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: G2. Yes, three Operator employees participated in the inspection & it was held at the Atmos Energy office in Danville. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: G3. Yes, the Federal Std Distr Insp form was used. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G4. Yes. I observed records review of items to be inspected in the field. The targeted sites were being listed in the inspection form notes. 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: G5. Yes. The portion I evaluated was an office Inspection and all procedures and records were available 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: G6. Yes. I observed records review. 2 2 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 187 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G7. Yes. Melissa was very knowledgeable, thorough and conducted herself in a professional manner. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the 1 1 interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G8. Yes. No violations found. Reminders: Brad Burchett PE fusion will expire 8-8-2018; EFV on Construction form needs to be marked on form; Joey Hurst ? DOT Emergency Training will expire 8-8-2018. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the 1 1 inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G9. Yes. No violations found. Reminders: Brad Burchett PE fusion will expire 8-8-2018; EFV on Construction form needs to be marked on form; Joey Hurst ? DOT Emergency Training will expire 8-8-2018. 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 B. Signs C. Tapping Info Only Info Only DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 19D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: G10. Yes. I observed records being reviewed in an office setting during a Standard Inspection. The inspection was performed in a professional, courteous, and thorough manner. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 098099674 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 098099674 2017 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.