Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ky2015ngprogramevaluation
2015 KY NG Program Evaluation - ky2015ngprogramevaluation (Kentucky; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ky2015ngprogramevaluation
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2015 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 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 22015 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2015 Gas State Agency: Kentucky Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/29/2016 - 09/02/2016 Agency Representative: Jason Hurt, Manager, Gas Pipeline Safety Branch James D. Rice, Assistant Director of Engineering Bill Aitken, Utility Regulatory & Safety Investigator IV Melissa Holbrook, Utility Regulator & Safety Inspector I 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 2015 (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 10 C Program Performance 47 47 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 11 10.5 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 10 10 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 114 110.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 96.9 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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: A review of Attachment 1 found the information was correctly entered with the jurisdictional authority over natural gas facilities. All inspection unit data was checked and matched Attachment 3. No issues. 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 was correctly entered on the number of inspection activities per the type of inspections performed. It was noted forty-six drug and alcohol inspections were performed and inspections listed in the Notes Section. 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: Reviewed Attachment 3, List of Operators, to Kentucky Public Service Commission database and found the inspection units were the same. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, one incident was reported in CY2015 by Atmos Energy on a intrastate transmission line on October 16, 2015. Information about the incident and the caused due to a third party was recorded on the Incident Report form. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A review of the KY PSC database information compared to Attachment 5, Stats on Compliance Actions, found number of carryovers and compliance action taken were correct. No issues with this document. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, all program files, office records and database were well-organized and available. 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 all inspectors have completed the required seven courses for Gas Inspector. Three inspectors have completed the Root Cause course and Program Manager is scheduled to attend the last of seven courses to meet the Gas Inspector qualification in October, 2016. 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 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 4KPSC has automatic adoption of federal pipeline safety regulations per state statute. 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: A review of Attachment 10 found information pertaining to the nine elements; planned and past performance was 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 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 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 = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual, under Inspection Format, Section B on page 8 listed standard inspection activities. However, items pertaining to pre-inspection and post-inspection activities are weak and need to be enhanced. Therefore, a loss of one point occurred. Please see examples provided in Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety, Appendix S. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 0.5 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: A review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual, under Inspection Format, Sections F & T contains IMP and DIMP forms used by the inspectors. However, the activities are weak and improvement is needed. Therefore, a half point deduction occurred. See example provided in Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety, Appendix S. 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 0.5 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: A review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found OQ inspection listed but the inspection activities are weak and improvement is needed. Therefore, a half point deduction occurred. See example provided in Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety, Appendix S. 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 1 0.5 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: A review of KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual found this listed but activities pertaining to pre & post activities were not provided. Activities are weak and improvement is needed. Therefore, a half point deduction occurred. See examples provided in Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety, Appendix S. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as 1 1 needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: request by the operator. Yes, this is listed under KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual Section IX. KY PSC conducts onsite training based on 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 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: 1 0.5 Yes, this item is listed KY PSC Gas Branch Procedure Manual but activities pertaining to pre & post activities were not DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 6provided. Therefore, a half point deduction occurred. See examples provided in Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety, Appendix S. 7 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: A loss of points occurred in this section on questions B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4 & B.6. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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): 557.50 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 557.50 / 990.00 = 0.56 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) = 557.5 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the program (220*Number of Inspection person years (Attachment 7) = 990 Formula: - Ratio = A/B = 557.5/990 = 0.56 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, KPSC has three inspectors who have completed mandatory training for Gas Integrity Management. Steve Samples continues to be the lead on DIMP/IMP. The Pipeline Safety Manager and Assistant Director of Engineering have completed all but one course PL3256 course. No issues. 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, Program Manager has successfully completed all but one course PL3256. He is scheduled to attend this course in 2016. He has demonstrated excellent knowledge about the pipeline safety regulations in the short 3 years he has been employed as the 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 Evaluator Notes: No response was required in the Chairman's letter dated June 9, 2015. 2 NA 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 8Yes, the last seminar was held in May, 2013 at the Marriott Griffin Gate-Lexington, KY. The next scheduled TQ Seminar will be in Bowling Green, KY on September 20-21, 2016 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 inspection reports per, files and data base indicated all inspection units and operators are inspected within the required three year period as listed in the procedure manual. 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 a review of files found they continue to utilize the federal inspection forms for all operators except Master Meter systems. They have a separate form they use which was developed from the federal distribution standard inspection form by eliminating portions that do not apply to Master Meter pipeline facilities. 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 is listed in the federal standard inspection document. Progress has been made in the last year, as of December 2015, Louisville Gas & Electric has 38.5 miles of cast iron, Columbia Gas 14.6 miles of cast iron and City of Fulton 3 miles of cast iron. Total miles of cast iron in the State of Kentucky are 56.1 miles. 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 is reviewed and checked annually by KYPSC. Additionally, this is listed in the supplemental questions section of the federal standard inspection document 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is reviewed and listed in the supplemental questions of the federal standard inspection document they use. 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: Yes. 1 1 12 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 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 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 9Evaluator Notes: Yes, they review and conduct a trend analysis of the information contained in the operator's annual reports. This review is used in rank risking their inspection visits. No issues. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, DIMP/IMP inspection results into federal database in a 2 2 timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of OQ & IMP federal database found inspections were correctly recorded. Fifteen OQ inspection report results were uploaded. No issues. 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 on the supplemental inspection form they use. 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 continues to be checked and reviewed during the standard inspection. 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. 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). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is checked and reviewed during the standard inspection. 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). 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 have been completed and updates about the operator's plans are reviewed during the inspection visit. 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years per RP1162 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 10Evaluator Notes: database. No issues. Yes, all PAPEI inspections were completed in CY2014. Inspection reports were mailed to PHMSA to be entered into the 20 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 1 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, KY PSC has an emergency contact list and they mail to the operator an annual letter about changes in personnel or updates pertaining to regulations & rules. A review of office files found the latest letter was mailed to all operators on March 16, 2015. 21 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: Yes, two safety related condition reports were filed by Louisville Gas & Electric Company in CY2015. KY PSC has scheduled a transmission inspection on the two locations and continues to monitor and advise PHMSA Southern Region Director on action taken by the operator. 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 item is in KPSC supplemental inspection questions and discussed with operators at their pipeline safety seminar and onsite training meetings. KY PSC continues to encourage operators to share incident failure data about PE pipe with AGA's Plastic Pipe Data Committee. 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: Yes, contacted Robert R. Clarillos, NAPSR Administrative Manager, and found KY PSC responded to his request about the DIMP program on June 22, 2015. 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: No waivers or special permits have been issued. 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, Jason Hurt and James Rice attended the 2015 NAPSR Board of Director in Tempe, AZ. 1 1 26 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:DUNS: 098099674 Kentucky 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 11Yes, a review of KY PSC state program performance metric on PHMSA Stakeholder Communication site found a high level of leaks repaired per 1,000 miles. This information was reviewed and discussed with the Program Manager. Action may be taken in the future to review these high level of leaks during the normal pipeline safety inspection. 27 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: 47 Total possible points for this section: 47 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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 Evaluator Notes: a & b. Yes, a review of KY PSC Procedure Manual on page 9 found correspondence is sent to the company officer/owner when a noncompliance is found. Additionally, KY PSC provides the operators with 30 days to respond to alleged probable violations. The procedures states all follow up inspections are scheduled after written notification of non-compliance has been sent to an operator. Each inspection report describes the status of deficiencies found in previous inspections. Deficiency information is entered into the inspection database which can be used to report the status of probable violations. A review of inspection reports found no issues with this requirement. It was suggested the civil penalty amounts be provided in all letters of non-compliance to operators in CY2016. 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: Yes, a review of KY PSC spreadsheets for CY2015 found compliance letters were sent to company officer or manager. For example, Housing Authority of Versailles, June 2, 2015, Dudley Court Apartments, August 20, 2015 & Housing Authority of Owingsville June 2, 2015. All inspectors verify this information at the start of their inspections and changes are recorded and entered during an inspection visit. A review indicated documentation of all probable violations were noted, corrective actions taken by the operator and closure of the inspection reports were complete. All violations opened or closed are maintained on "Deficiency Spreadsheet" and reviewed monthly. Yes, civil penalties are provided in correspondence letters. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: operator. Yes, a review of "Deficiency Spreadsheet" found probable violations were followed up with written communication to the 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review found probable violations were followed up with written communication to the operator. 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 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: Yes, Program Manager is familiar with the process of imposing civil penalties and has demonstrated this in the Duke Energy Company case #2014-00263. DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 136 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, Duke Energy, Case Number 2014-00263 is a clear demonstration of their enforcement authority. 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 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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 Incident Investigation page 11. 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, this is accomplished by group email address to pipeline safety personnel and Commissioners. A discussion with program manager found a good understanding of the MOU's between NTSB/PHMSA. Additionally, these documents are located in their procedures manual. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 0.5 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: No, a review of KY PSC investigative files pertaining to the incident that occurred October 16, 2015 on Atmos Energy in Shelbyville, KY found the agency received the call and discussed the incident but did not document in a memo to file or other means a decision to not go to the site to investigate. The incident was due to third party damage and no death/fatalities resulted. However, action should be taken to record a decision to not go. Improvement is needed and a loss of half a point occurred. 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: An investigation was conducted after receiving an incident report from the operator. Based on the information from the operator and staff they determined not to continue the investigation due to no injuries or loss of property. KPSC has established a follow-up inspection to review this transmission line in the next inspection visit schedule in CY2016. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No compliance action or violations were found during a review of the incident. 1 1 6 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: DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 15Yes, Jason Hurt was in contact with Chris Taylor, PHMSA Southern Region, about the incident and noted the operator entered "Interstate" instead of "Intrastate" Transmission pipeline in the incident report. The operator corrected the report and re-submitted the final report to PHMSA. 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 incidents/accidents was presented at the NAPSR Southern Region Meeting in Biloxi, MS in April, 2016. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A loss of half a point occurred in this section on question E.3 Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10.5 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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 questions to the operators. The drilling/boring procedures are reviewed by inspectors during the 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 item is listed and discussed with the operator on the Supplemental 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 item is listed and discussed with the operator on the Supplemental 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: 2 2 Yes, this is monitoring during their review of the annual operator reports submitted by the operators each year. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in the review of this section. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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: Delta Natural Gas Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Melissa Holbrook, Utility Regulator & Safety Inspector I Location of Inspection: Nicholasville, KY. Date of Inspection: August 31 - September 1, 2016 Name of PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, PHMSA State Programs Evaluator Notes: A portion of the standard inspection was conducted in Nicholasville, KY on August 31. This portion consisted of a field review of regulator stations, emergency valves and pipe to soil potential readings. On September 1st the remaining section of the standard inspection pertaining to OQ, maintenance records and public awareness was reviewed in the Winchester, KY office. 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, Delta Natural Gas Company representative was conducted on June 27, 2016 via email from Melissa Holbrook. 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: Yes, Melissa Holbrook used the federal standard inspection form and was very thorough in documenting the answers provided by the operator. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, it was observed Ms. Holbrook was asking questions and documenting answers from the operator's representatives on each item pertaining to the inspection. She conducted the inspection in a very professional manner. 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection 1 1 to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Ms. Holbrook checked the operator's pipe to soil potential meter and pressure gauges prior to recording readings and checking relief valve settings. 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 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 18Yes, Delta Natural Gas Company's records, procedures and equipment was checked and reviewed during the field and office inspection. 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, Ms. Holbrook has completed all gas inspector courses at TQ and has eleven years of gas pipeline safety inspection experience. 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: 1 NA NA. The exit interview was due to be conducted after this evaluation period. Therefore, this item was not observed. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: NA 1 NA 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 19A. Repairs B. 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: Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: NA 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: NA 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NA Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 098099674 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Kentucky KENTUCKY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
KY NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: NA 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: NA 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NA Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 098099674 2015 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.