U. S~epart nT of Transp n

thlpetln HazaNto ~lni

als Safety

233 Peachtree Street Ste. 600 Atlapta, GA 30303

1)ET) k - RETURN RE S

i I' I

Margh 14I, 20 %. ~

Mr. Jeff B @resident eral Manager

Kentuclcyi+ irginia Gas Con)lttany

748 North@ fl)rive

Prestonsbtni, 'Ii 41653

, , I ~

CPF No. IZ:-2008-1006W

On August 2941j, 2007, representatives of e+tpelitte andi Hazardous Materials Safety

Administr '

JtltMSA), pursuantit5T 601 af nited Statest&ode, inspected your

Integrity M Went Program at Preston g, Kentuc

As aitlesiil inspection, it appears, you have dsdngge~rqbable violations of the

Pipeline i gulations, Title&IC~of Feder~tssISilations. The items inspected and the

probable viiol '

ns are: ~ I

L g9gi 9QWihat must tsainpe le~sse tttfplan?

i(e) oaeduretoensurerfhtt Iiftelin'ett eshnentitsibeingconductedina m that minimizes envieaggpngl andi s ptisks.

I I

A pot nttal issue was ident' ed tha atlegtiate

precautions

were not i specified in the

prtIce implemented to ensure aselineiassassments are being conducted in a

at minimizes envimnme al and safe les. -The concern stems from an I

pt ijptyd '

gth t, dgtth~%d, tti g t tr High

Cb ence Areai(iHCA)i a. Ropti d8%tandiysis of the incident by the I

e found that qualifie made e iit following the company

pro es.

2. ttl . How does an operato 'gratify potgfttiaLthriqats to pipeline integrity and I gm

us h attidentificatiitlra 'ity glans?l I — t I ( i(a denrifrcarion. Antq e inu [iidlenjtlp and evplutttetallspotential

t Sach coveredttStl0tltl dhtg e 'alt~eats thaitsenitttierator must

3 m s h I

I I

i I m ~ I g

I s

, ( t'

s . ~ I Jl I

J.

I

I

I

I

4 t'III'% %hat are the requir wit ittoments jn~ co pipeline segments. —

I I/

'ngludie, but are not' ' ' to, the a Iistedsn AiNISK/ANSI 831. 8S

2. 7), section 2. I

[ lt) he threat identificattoutp ss, as desgjlPeII in the IMP section 5 . 6. 3, has not

dequately considered or ted intLs&t~e threats as stat@tin ASME 3. 1. 8S, Section 2. 2. e data for tho-threat~id

' ' n an41risk assessment has not been adequately

nhecked for accIiracyiaa ' AiS~ i8S, Secttoni4. 1. Specific

h xamples include accur m+o4eness of data@lated to-etfective one-call

I tern and atmosphel5c n.

~3) e, iiMP does notadequ 'ddress iiltog ation of ILI or ECIltAsesults with V' a zen encroachme%sio gee dro ggs in the saint segment to identify

tions of potentipghir damag stated in'ASMII IIt3T. 8S, Section 4. 5. I

3. Itit What are the requitie~lformsing%xtecnai Corrosion. Direct ent (ECDA)?

I criteria and notitac cgtfqjggpr any changes in the ECDA Plan, Nne hanges that, altitiecglth vnr — sasaidation, tIIe priority of direct

'on, and the time frgtrIp iree 'nation~ of/nsdications. ~ ~

I I

lt) ECDA Plan does no e adeqwat ria and notification procedures for

y changes in the ~ incltt&h~h angeMhat d~t the severity assification, theipsiori ect ex~ation, and the tend &arne for direct

. ~ antinations of indicati e ECDA Plan in 6. 1 s at-th maining half life to be used for

I culating the reassess rstal iss thee "scheduled" indication and

+pot the )argest unique&indi abound 'Cls 0502-2002 andthe i ~)erpretation of thi~if Intro CE Technical C&ptmittee. The

~assessmentintervalsit dan 's ed" indications sine&all ' immediate" indicatiordj e ber~yjpssetfiduring the direct examination

ep and "monitoretp' in 'ons are egg'ed ta-experierice4stsignificant rovrth.

e ECDA Plan in 6. 5& t have ovision to reduce thelre-assessment terval based oniconditi un' otII

i stating what appropriate federal I r gulations must be eval eni e are found (i. e. there are scheduled

efects left unexcavated) +ertssessmentintervalifor each ECDA region is np+alfofthe rematmn calculate

' 6. 5. 1. However, the maximum

assessment interv or egiqn m urther'/i~/ted by the most strtetive criteria fr reIo o/Jowing regulations, codes, and

n$ards: 49CFRfi $/. 8, ASME B3/. BS, or NACE ' ~ 0502.

I

aS%essmeni?iiwatervais? An operator must comply '

ggaxtea~ssmentitaIerv+for the operator's

I

L

L

. p I

I

2 lsk 5)

. eg i

. ila e

arqps

fi r

Tk

und

I Ia ~ Call

I

l, 'Q-, gill9

vs I Ious

(e)(5) ith

('liil9

en ev

T ~ '

he IMP Section 13, Hated June 5, 20 esi not accuratelyi and clearly describe

rocess for regses ov Smell orJwhichlalbpeline essment wk con8)lct progr inantirienlains iui a "framework"

tatus with significant. 'ad a~og~e~o meet the regulation

pirements. e process tonsure nklittt aie appropriate is not accurately

riespnted, includin almsqgsi in%ection 1Xandjigures 13-2, 13-

A, 13-3, 13-4 aud 17;5, le: ~

~ I

ow chart logic for som s/no decisi~eiincorrect u IQ I

D' ision block C2 outti 13-2 appease be incorrect eral blocks oil iEi u e - lt3-~eedsfurthbt basis for decision criteria fl safety margin rellate min. ~ & technical basis for c on ratebfom%hla in Fjgure 13-5

I ~ 5 yes option onlpgure -4 is mis~ J

IlSR is incorrectly s4own. olkiohyp Iligurei13-3

hese examples exhibit d (or +lneugh review and revision of Section

3 to assure theipr&gggs '

tggiiiav KtetIualsi are determined provide a

upd basis upoilI which lis+easscssment intervals.

'u What additionalIprev lvhland miitigaiiveaneasltrlez ma~It operator

I

, Collecling in a ceNttta basei ilvIgoct+io~hat Isiiqcutio)tl specific on

bn diamage Diat oceu ilered 844coVerledlsegments in the I I

oin Systole. artd tiielp usoianai uppoilipdentiSQation of iadlditional pirieventatisi mitty

' sures in thethjgh consequence

is information md'' tlgco alamage Ihat its indi required to be as an incident und

es not adequately h Mectin, '

a coittral database, loitation-specific '

n On excavation daimgae helproces usiilig the Central lillcident Database

ssogiated Audit Aotlon lggster to rev' d analyze ihcidei)ts, includi9g root aiiysis, should be in. (he lan. t

ul does an opera nay Ilbtttiaii'tihreats-to Iliipetipe integritlpand eat identification

' gritg, proOO?

vision. IILanoll Q les eo sion on a couered pipeline segment

ld adversely Alt . (a3Inditionsqpaci6cd in

qthp opernatou. 'm e d torus necesls~, all pipeline

i+4th c evened an credit '

rimatetliultcok(gng and I

enitai characttu4s 'cs. erat +SlisJI la Sillleiltule for ) ndtiemedipting, a aey, ith mllarsegmenitsthatiisconsisteat

I

Ioperato~s esta~she qlllnlgia intepqqpe qrncpilmuutS~nder part estidg and riqppiirg I

l es aiot addresgl4g, srosiqg4n sinular

', I

I

I

I

I

L

~ I I I

no c ed segments when serio orrosion discovered in a covered segment.

I

7. Itil . hqt liiecords usus atnrlkegfp tntentsitIo supportlan stoII, anall~nd processldevel+ed and used to

i and evaluate eaglii ent othe'lidRSne assllspmentl ghn and integrity

nl Sia nt program. Dnqi '

clu4p tj e ' vQoped uttdlulidd in support of . I~ . an+i I ation, calculatioit, dment, mod' ication, jILstlSusllion, deviation

anuLugrntlinalslon made, agdl 4ionl elmmlement and leslaluate any of m

the ro m elements. I l ~

Su i ent documentation was n I~I&le suppost]pe basis for manlr decisions,

ah dkgprocess develcpe dgxo ~mldn~tand evaluate 4h IMP.

IExaI0 s(include bases forl Ilm ynceml ('!%der)-inethodology, historical ' non- sl)tity of gas, not a4di maticlshutE&fflvalives or remote'control valves;

Im corrpsgp growth equation ip Fi -6, and aisgpsilSIrin OMiucrcpancy between test

lhccdp%ce pressure and test pl ure. A proPVss@hotlld bo-develqped to require ~- doc tation of the basis for dyes ns. T J

Under L49 States Code (I 6I6522, 1

' isject~cilvil penaltyinot to exceed $100, 000 for each I orl each daytthe violatio grist upt&g magnum of $1, 000@00 for any

related senes ielations. We have Ile ed the 'rcmp4nces and lsupporting documents I

J. l involved in' case, and have decided. no nduct u'dtllitional enforcement action or penalty

assesSIneII eed'ing at thiztiute. Wie youito cokect the item(s) identlilfied in this

letter. Fail domo wilII result i+cut West Virgi jia %as Company(being subject to

additional ment action

I ~ I

N o reply to leger is required. If yoq Clap No. QI006W. Be advi~edltha

enforcemeqt on is subject to being,

of your its e material qualifiesf with the corn e'original dochmeqgyo portionsyou

' equalifyforcoqgle

believe the re ted information quahfIIW

I

Sincerely, g

Mohammed

alh

Djreaterg egiou 'lpipelide@id debus Materials Wet~ — I I' I

se lto repl, '

your correspondenceIplease refer to ateri ~ hmit in response to this

u icly ila e. ' If you believe ~Ihat-any portion iu ent under 5 W. S. C. 552(b), along

roi(i second copy of the document with the

e dattid an explanation of why you e cut~der 5 V. SlC. 552(b).

I

istrati

4