Distribution Integrity Management Plan Alabama Gas Corporation Version 1.2.a July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a Table of Contents Section Page REVISION CONTROL SHEET ................................................................................................. 4 1.0 ALAGASCO OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................4 2.0 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................5 3.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................6 4.0 DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................7 5.0 KNOWLEDGE OF FACILITIES ....................................................................................8 6.0 THREAT IDENTIFICATION .........................................................................................9 7.0 EVALUATION AND RANKING OF RISK ...................................................................9 8.0 IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO ADDRESS RISKS............................................................................................................................................11 9.0 MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE, MONITORING RESULTS, AND EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS ..........................................................................................13 10.0 PERIODIC EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT .................................................14 11.0 REPORTING RESULTS ................................................................................................15 12.0 DOCUMENT AND RECORD RETENTION ...............................................................15 APPENDIX A KNOWLEDGE OF FACILITIES ....................................................................17 APPENDIX B THREAT IDENTIFICATION ..........................................................................98 APPENDIX C EVALUATION AND RANKING OF RISK..................................................100 APPENDIX D IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO ADDRESS RISKS……………………………………………………………………………..128 APPENDIX E MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE, MONITORING RESULTS, AND EVALUATION EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................142 APPENDIX F PERIODIC EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT ..................................166 APPENDIX G CROSS REFERENCE OF 49 CFR PART 192, SUBPART P REQUIREMENTS TO THE IM PLAN ..................................................................................172 APPENDIX H COPY OF 49 CFR PART 192, SUBPART P.................................................176 APPENDIX I ANNUAL DOT REPORT .................................................................................187 July 31, 2013 DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1 REVISION CONTROL SHEET Title: Alagasco Distribution Integrity Management Plan Section Pages Revision Date Comments 12.0 16 1 7/31/2013 Update Document and Records Retention A2.0 20-21 2 7/31/2013 Updated with 2012 data A3.0 23-27 2 7/31/2013 Removed data >10 yrs old, updated CP information for 2013 A4.0 28-69, 72-97 1 3/21/2014 Updated for current status B1.0 98 1 7/26/2012 Threat applicability note added C1.0 100-111 2 3/21/2014 Uptime risk matrices updated D2.0 131-137 2 3/21/2014 D3.0 138 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status D4.0 138 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status D5.0 138 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status D6.0 138 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status D7.0 138 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status D8.0 139 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status D9.0 139 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status July 31, 2013 DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2 Updated to include 2012 data, removed 2007 data D10.0 139 2 3/21/2014 Updated with current status E1.0 141 2 7/31/2013 2012 data added, 2007 removed E2.0 142-150 2 7/31/2013 2012 data added, 2007 removed E3.0 151 2 7/31/2013 2012 data added, 2007 removed E4.0 152-161 2 7/31/2013 2012 data added E5.0 162 2 7/31/2013 2012 data added App. F 163 2 3/21/2014 App. I 179 2 7/31/2013 July 31, 2013 DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 3 Updated with current status. Added DIMP meetings log. 2012 DOT report added 1.0 ALAGASCO OVERVIEW The History of Alagasco, an Energen Company Alagasco has been providing reliable natural gas service in Alabama for more than 150 years. A subsidiary of Energen Corporation, Alagasco traces its beginning to 1852 when the company was known as the Montgomery Gas Light Company. At the beginning, the company was responsible for providing street lighting in Montgomery, Alabama using manufactured gas. Through a series of relocations, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and name changes, Alabama Gas Company (Alagasco) emerged in 1948. Alagasco is the largest natural gas distributor in the state and serves approximately 425000 customers in over 200 Alabama cities, town and communities. More than 1,000 employees work in Alagasco’s seven operating work locations: Anniston, Birmingham, Gadsden, Montgomery, Opelika, Selma and Tuscaloosa. The company serves several small districts outside its main central Alabama territory including: East Lauderdale to the north and Phenix City to the south. The service territory is depicted in Figure 1-1 below. Figure 1-1 Alagasco Service Territory July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 4 2.0 SCOPE The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) amended the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations on December 4, 2009 and amended February 1 and 2, 2010 to require operators of gas distribution pipelines to develop and implement an integrity management (IM) program that includes a written integrity management plan. The purpose of the IM program is to enhance safety by identifying and reducing gas distribution pipeline integrity risks. Operators must integrate reasonably available information about their pipelines to inform their risk decisions. The rule requires that operators identify risks to their pipelines where an incident could cause serious consequences and focus priority attention in those areas. The rule also requires that operators implement a program to provide greater assurance of the integrity of their pipeline. The IM approach was designed to promote continuous improvement in pipeline safety by requiring operators to identify and invest in risk control measures beyond previously established regulatory requirements. This written IM Plan addresses the IM Rule which requires operators to develop and implement an IM program that addresses the following elements: • Knowledge • Identify Threats • Evaluate and Rank Risks • Identify and Implement Measures to Address Risks • Measure Performance, Monitor Results, and Evaluate Effectiveness • Periodic Evaluation and Improvement • Report results Because of the significant diversity among distribution pipeline operators and pipelines, the July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 5 requirements in the IM Rule are high-level and performance-based. The IM Rule specifies the required program elements but does not prescribe specific methods of implementation. 3.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the IM program is to enhance safety by identifying and reducing gas distribution integrity risks. Managing the integrity and reliability of the gas distribution pipeline has always been a primary goal for Alagasco with design, construction, operations and maintenance activities performed in compliance with CFR Part 192 requirements. The objective of this IM Plan is to establish the requirements to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 49) §§ 192.1005, 192.1007, 192.1009 and 192.1011, pertaining to integrity management for gas distribution pipelines. This IM Plan does not address how Alagasco may deviate from the required periodic inspections as provided for in §192.1013. The IM Plan is comprised of seven elements depicted in Figure 3-1. Knowledge of Facilities (Section 5) Threat Identification (Section 6) Reporting Results (Section 11) Evaluation and Ranking of Risk (Section 7) Identification and Implementation of Measures to Address Risk (Section 8) Periodic Evaluation and Improvement (Section 10) Measurement of Performance, Monitoring Results, and Evaluating Effectiveness (Section 9) Figure 3-1 DIMP Elements In addition to the key elements shown in Figure 3-1, the IM Plan also establishes requirements for reporting of mechanical fitting failures (Section 11.2) and maintaining records (Section 12). July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 6 All elements of this IM Plan shall be implemented by no later than August 2, 2011. Alagasco’s System Integrity functional area is responsible to the Vice President – System Integrity for ensuring this plan meets the requirements of the rule. 4.0 DEFINITIONS The definitions provided in 49 CFR, §192.3 and §192.1001 shall apply to this IM Plan. The following additional definitions and acronyms shall also apply to this IM Plan. DIMP: Distribution Integrity Management Program Distribution Integrity Management Program Files: Alagasco records, databases, and/or files that contain either material incorporated by reference in the Appendices of the IM Plan or outdated material that was once contained in the IM Plan Appendices but is being retained in order to comply with record keeping requirements. EFV: Excess Flow Valve. An Excess Flow Valve is a safety device that is designed to shut off flow of natural gas automatically if the service line breaks. IM Rule: 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart P Operations Procedure Manual (OPM): Alagasco’s manual which provides guidelines on operating a natural gas distribution system for design and specification, construction and installation, maintenance and compliance, and emergency response activities. PHMSA: The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Risk: A relative measure of the likelihood of a failure associated with a threat and the potential consequences of such a failure. Ticket: A notification from the one-call notification center, Alabama 811, to Alagasco providing information of pending excavation activity for which Alagasco or its designee is to locate and mark its facilities. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 7 5.0 KNOWLEDGE OF FACILITIES The objective of this section is to assemble as complete of an understanding of Alagasco’s infrastructure as possible using reasonably available information from past and ongoing design, operations and maintenance activities. In addition, this plan will identify what additional information is needed and provide a plan for gaining that information over time through normal activities. The information referenced in this Section shall either be placed in Appendix A or included in Appendix A by reference. 5.1 Type and Location of Records A summary of the existing records that are utilized by the IM Plan and where they are located shall be documented in Appendix A, Section 1. This may include, but is not limited to, incident and leak history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance history and excavation damage experience. 5.2 Overview of Past Design, Operations and Maintenance Information gained from past design, operations and maintenance shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix A, Section 2. 5.3 Characteristics of Design, Operations and Environmental Factors Characteristics of the pipeline’s design, operations and environmental factors that are necessary to assess the applicable threats and risks shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix A, Section 3. 5.4 Additional Information Needed Additional information needed to support the IM plan (information that is not reasonably available today) is identified in Appendix A, Section 2. Plans for gaining additional information over time through normal activities conducted on the pipeline shall also be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix A, Section 4. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 8 5.5 Data Capture for New Construction and Ongoing O&M Data is continuously collected for both construction of new facilities, reconstruction of existing facilities and ongoing operations and maintenance. In particular, the standard or procedure that requires data capture for the location where the new pipeline is installed and the material of which it is constructed is contained in Alagasco’s Operations Procedure Manual, Construction and Installation section CI 1.15.9. 6.0 THREAT IDENTIFICATION The objective of this section of the plan is to identify existing and potential threats to the gas distribution pipeline. The following categories of threats shall be considered for each gas distribution pipeline:  Corrosion  Natural Forces  Excavation Damage  Other Outside Force  Material, Weld or Joint Failure  Equipment Failure  Incorrect Operation  Other concerns that could threaten the integrity of the pipeline. A review of information gathered for Section 5 shall be conducted to identify existing and potential threats. A description of the process used to identify threats shall be documented in Appendix B, Section 1. Threats identified as applicable to the gas distribution pipeline shall be documented in Appendix B, Section 2. Prior versions of the threat identification process and results that are not longer current shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 7.0 EVALUATION AND RANKING OF RISK July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 9 7.1 Objective Risk analysis is an ongoing process of understanding what factors affect the risk posed by threats to the gas distribution pipeline and where they are relatively more important than others. The primary objectives of the evaluation and ranking of gas distribution pipeline risk are:  Consider each applicable current and potential threat  Consider the likelihood of failure associated with each threat  Consider the potential consequences of such a failure  Estimate and rank the risks (i.e. determine the relative importance) posed to the pipeline  7.2 Consider the relevance of threats in one location to other areas Risk Assessment Process The current process used for Risk Assessment (the evaluation and ranking of risk) shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix C, Section 1. Prior risk assessment processes shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 7.3 Risk Assessment The current risk assessment (likelihood, consequence, and resultant risk ranking) shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix C, Section 2. Prior risk assessment results shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 10 8.0 IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO ADDRESS RISKS The objective of this section of the IM Plan is to describe existing and proposed measures to address the risks that have been evaluated and prioritized in Section 7. 8.1 Leak Management Program The Leak Management program is established in the Alagasco Operations Procedure Manual, Maintenance and Compliance section MC 7.0. 8.1.1 Description of Existing Program A summary of the key elements of the Leak Management Program shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 1. 8.1.2 Key Performance Metrics & Analysis of Effectiveness The Leak Management Program key performance metrics (those that establish program effectiveness) shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 2. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2 Other Additional or Accelerated Actions The following Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.8 outline additional or accelerated actions that have been taken or are being planned in order to reduce the risks from failure of the gas distribution pipeline. 8.2.1 Corrosion Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with corrosion shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 3. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2.2 Natural Forces July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 11 Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with natural forces shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 4. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2.3 Excavation Damage Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with excavation damage shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 5. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2.4 Other Outside Force Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with other outside force shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 6. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2.5 Material, Weld or Joint Failure Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with material, weld or joint failure shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 7. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2.6 Equipment Failure Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with equipment failure shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 8. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 12 8.2.7 Incorrect Operation Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with incorrect operation shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 9. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 8.2.8 Other Additional or Accelerated Actions that are currently scheduled or in place in order to reduce the risks associated with other causes shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix D, Section 10. Prior documentation shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 9.0 MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE, MONITORING RESULTS, AND EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS The objective of this section of the plan is to establish performance measures that shall be monitored from an established baseline in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the IM program. The performance measures detailed in Sections 9.1 through 9.6 have been established in order to monitor performance and assist in the ongoing evaluation of threats. 9.1 Number of Hazardous Leaks either Eliminated or Repaired, per §192.703(c), Categorized by Cause The baseline and ongoing performance of the number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired, per §192.703(c), categorized by cause, shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix E, Section 1. 9.2 Number of Excavation Damages The baseline and ongoing performance of the number of excavation damages shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix E, Section 2. 9.3 Number of Excavation Tickets (received from Alabama 811) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 13 The baseline and ongoing performance of the number of excavation tickets received from Alabama 811 shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix E, Section 3. 9.4 Total Number of Leaks either Eliminated or Repaired, Categorized by Cause The baseline and ongoing performance of the total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by cause, shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix E, Section 4. 9.5 Additional Performance Measures If it is determined that additional performance measures are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the IM Program in controlling an identified threat, the performance measures shall be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix E, Section 6. 10.0 PERIODIC EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT The objective of this section of the plan is to periodically re-evaluate threats and risks on the entire pipeline and periodically evaluate the effectiveness of its program. 10.1 Plan Updating, Review Frequency and Documentation This written integrity management plan shall be reviewed annually and updated as required to reflect changes and improvements that have occurred in process, procedures and analysis for each element of the program. A complete program re-evaluation shall be completed every five years. All changes to the written plan, inclusive of material from the appendices, shall be recorded on the Revision Control Sheet on page 2. However, changes to material in the appendices that is included by reference need not be recorded on the Revision Control Sheet. 10.2 Effectiveness Review An assessment of the performance measures described in Sections 9.1 through 9.5 shall be performed. In cases where the re-evaluation criteria specified is met or exceeded, a re-evaluation of the associated threats and risks shall be completed. An emerging threat in one or more location shall be evaluated for relevance to other areas. The re-evaluation of threats and risks July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 14 shall be documented in Appendix F and the results of the re-evaluation shall be documented in Appendices B and C. The review shall also establish whether a complete program re-evaluation shall be completed in a shorter timeframe than five years; this decision shall also be documented. Past effectiveness reviews that are no longer current shall be retained and stored in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files. 11.0 REPORTING RESULTS 11.1 State & Federal Annual Reporting Requirements The following four measures shall be reported, annually by March 15, to PHMSA as part of the annual report required by 49 CFR, § 191.11:  Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired (or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired when found), per § 192.703(c), categorized by cause  Number of excavation damages  Number of excavation tickets (receipt of information by Alagasco from Alabama 811)  Total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by cause  Information related to failure of mechanical fittings, excluding those that result only in nonhazardous leaks, shall be reported to PHMSA as part of the annual report required by §191.11 beginning with the report submitted March 15, 2011.  These five measures shall also be reported to the Alabama Public Service Commission Pipeline Safety Administrator. A copy of the reports shall be maintained in the Alagasco Distribution Integrity Management Program files in the System Integrity Department. 12.0 DOCUMENT AND RECORD RETENTION The following records shall be retained in the Distribution Integrity Management Program files in Alagasco’s corporate office, System Integrity Department.  The most current, as well as prior versions, of this written IM Plan July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 15  Documents supporting Knowledge of Facilities (material supporting Appendix A of the IM Plan)  Documents supporting threat identification (material supporting Appendix B of the IM Plan)  Documents supporting risk evaluation and ranking (material supporting Appendix C of the IM Plan)  Documents supporting the identification and implementation of measures to address risks (material supporting Appendix D of the IM Plan)  Documents supporting measurement of performance, monitoring results and evaluating effectiveness (material supporting Appendix E of the IM Plan)  Effectiveness Reviews (material supporting Appendix F of the IM Plan)  Annual Reports to PHMSA (as required by §191.11) and Alabama Public Service Commission Pipeline Safety office  Mechanical Fitting Failure Reports  Overpressure Reports Documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 192, Subpart P shall be retained for at least 10 years in Alagasco’s System Integrity Department. As changes are made to this plan, the System Integrity Department will notify operations management personnel of the changes made and the location of the document for review. The System Integrity Department will also notify the Alabama PSC Pipeline Safety Administrator when significant updates are made to this plan July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 16 APPENDIX A KNOWLEDGE OF FACILITIES A1.0 Summary of Existing Records A2.0 Overview of Past Design, Operations and Maintenance A3.0 Characteristics of Design, Operations and Environmental Factors A4.0Additional Information Needed July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 17 A1.0 Summary of Existing Records Record Type – Record Graphic Information System (GIS) database Wall Maps / Plats Gas Service Records As-Built Construction Drawings / records July 31, 2013 Database, Electronic Record, Paper Record Electronic Paper Paper and electronic Paper and electronic Applicable Standard, Policy, or Guideline Extent of Missing Records Location of Records Key Contact OPM Attribute data prior to 1982 is not fully populated Alagasco servers System Integrity Past standards Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available Alagasco Corporate office and work location offices System Integrity OPM Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available Work locations offices Work location management OPM Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available Work location operations and System Integrity System Integrity Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 18 Gas Leak Repair Records Gas Leak Repair Database Paper and electronic Paper and electronic OPM Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available Work location offices and SAP Since 1/1/03-ERMA (SAP) system OPM Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available Network ERMA System Integrity department files, off-site records, and work location office records System Integrity Gas Leak Survey Records Paper and electronic OPM Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available DOT/PHMSA Incident Reports Paper and electronic OPM None System Integrity department files and G:/Op Srv System Integrity Other Incident Reports Paper and electronic OPM None System Integrity department files and G:/Op Srv System Integrity July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 19 Cathodic Protection Maintenance Areas (Rectifier and Pipe-toSoil inspection) Continuing Surveillance and abnormal movement records Paper and electronic OPM Varies among work locationsmunicipal acquisition areas generally have fewer records available Paper OPM None known Records maintained by Corrosion Technicians; test point data maintained in ERMA Records maintained in local offices Corrosion Services Work locations A2.0 Overview of Past Design, Operations and Maintenance Summary of System Design by Operating Pressure –estimated from MAGI data for 2012 Maximum Operating Pressure Low-Pressure (1 psig or less) Medium Pressure – 2 psig to 60 psig July 31, 2013 2012 Estimated % Miles of Main 2.57% 81.39% High Pressure – greater than 60 psig 16.00% Unknown or Listed as Null 0.00% Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 20 Summary of Material Types and Years Installed – as of the 2012 DOT Report Mains Material Type Current Miles of Main Cast Iron/Wrought Iron 889.2 Other Bare Steel – with CP 48.2 292.5 Bare Steel – No CP 332.8 Coated Steel – with CP Coated Steel – no CP 514.3 Ductile Iron 1.5 Copper Plastic - PVC Plastic - ABS 0 0 0 Plastic –MDPE 4181.4 Plastic – Aldyl-A Approx. 291 (0.89 miles is pre-1973) Plastic – HDPE 3306 5.24 Plastic – All Others 0 July 31, 2013 Years Installed (of remaining) Through the 1950s Unknown Unknown Prior to 1971 1971 to present Unknown 1942-1969 per MAGI n/a n/a n/a 1983 to present 1965 to 1988 (BGH onlyper MAGI) 1982-2006 (still subject to being installed) n/a Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a Services Number of Services 14 0 81,567 40,069 136,412 2,481 0 1,135 0 0 281,037 Unknown Unknown 0 Years Installed (of remaining) Through the 1950s n/a Unknown Prior to 1971 1971 to present Unknown n/a unknown n/a n/a 1983 to present 1965 to 1988 1982-2006 still subject to being installed) n/a 21 Summary of Construction Practices Year first deployed Material Type Replacement via insertion of Copper Replacement via Insertion of Plastic Replacement via insertion and pipe bursting/splitting Internal lining / slip-lining Joint Trench with other utilities Augur Bore – soil displacement Unguided Bore – Ram Guided Directional Bore / Drill Blasting Plow-in n/a 1977 (est.) n/a n/a n/a 1960s (est.) 1960s (est.) 1990s Unknownlimited use 1990s-very limited use Year Ceased n/a ongoing n/a n/a n/a ongoing ongoing ongoing Unknown- limited use 1990s-very limited use A3.0 Characteristics of Design, Operations and Environmental Factors Miles of Mains and Number of Services by Material Type [See Part B1 of PHMSA Form F 7100.1-1 incorporated by reference] Miles of Mains and Number of Service lines by material and nominal diameter [See Part B2 & B3 of PHMSA Form F 7100.1-1 incorporated by reference] Miles of Mains and Number of Services by material and decade [See Part B4 of PHMSA Form F 7100.1-1 incorporated by reference] July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 22 Reportable Incidents Summary by Year REVIEW OF INCIDENT REPORTS 2001 –June 2013 Reported To Date Location State Federal Materials Cause Involved Failed Only Main or Comments Service 2/26/2002 Birmingham X Excavation 2" PE Main 4/26/2002 Rainbow X Excavation 2" PE Main X Failure in body 2" Steel City 5/30/2002 Brighton x Main of pipe Gas from leak migrated into house via sewer line 12/18/2002 Birmingham 11/19/2003 Tuscaloosa X X Excavation 6" CI Main Directionally 4" PE Main bored into MP inpatient hospitalization line 1/20/2004 Birmingham X Outside Forces 6" CI x Main one fatality -Ground Subsidence 2/6/2004 Moundville X Outside Force 4" Steel Main Ground washout due to heavy rains 3/24/2004 Hueytown X Outside Force one fatality - Car ran into meter assembly 7/23/2004 Homewood X Excavation 4" PE Main 7/26/2004 Montgomery X Incorrect 2" PE Main Operation Operator assumed two way feed. Lost service after mains cut and capped 12/15/2004 Bessemer X Excavation PE (size Service 12/17/2004 Hoover X Excavation 4" PE Main 10/10/2005 Birmingham Other 1-1/4" Service unk) X Steel Report by Fire Dept that service line ruptured by external forces from falling debris 12/17/2005 Midfield X Failure in body 2" CI x Main of pipe July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 23 2/1/2007 Hoover X Other 5/8" PE x Service house destroyed-Pipe rupture where an improper repair with non-standard fittings had been made by a third party not authorized by Alabama Gas Corp. 2/26/2008 Vestavia X Other – Main Unknown Cause of fire was not determined during investigation. Power lines may have energized gas service resulting in the fire. 3/31/2008 Linden X 1/16/2009 Jefferson Co. X Excavation 4" PE Incorrect Regulator Main Demand on regulator Operation exceeded resulting in an outage of 113 customers . Additional regulator was installed to accommodate load. 6/25/2009 Pleasant X Excavation 2" PE X Equipment Regulator Main Grove 7/6/2009 Oxford Anniston #3 Border Failure Station had a regulator in the secondary run tjat was not seating completely and the monitor pilot was stuck in the open position. 7/8/2009 Eutaw X Incorrect Steel During a routine valve Operation Valve inspection, the valve was inadvertently left off, resulting in an outage of 162 customers 8/24/2009 Hoover July 31, 2013 X Excavation 5/8" PE Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a Service 24 9/28/2009 Montgomery X Incorrect Regulator Small leak found on Operation regulator restrictor. After repair valve was left off resulting in an outage of 151 customers 12/9/2009 Ashville X Excavation 4" PE Main 2/11/2010 Birmingham X Excavation 6" CI Main 2/17/2010 Birmingham X Excavation 8" PE Main 6/23/2010 Gadsden X Excavation 6" Steel Main 8/24/2010 Anniston X Excavation 10" Steel Main 10/20/2010 Tuscaloosa X Excavation 4" Steel Main 1/1/2011 Birmingham Equipment PE Service Failure Service X estimated $700k+ property damage Tap 2/7/2013 Birmingham X Outside Force Service Service Riser TOTALS 23 8 Reportable Incidents by Cause (23 incidents reported to APSC only – 8 to Federal) Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Material, Weld or Natural Excavation Outside Joint Equipment Incorrect Corrosion Forces Damage Force Failure Failure Operation Other 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 July 31, 2013 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Total Since 2001 Annual Incident Rate Since 2001 0 0 16 4 2 2 4 3 0 0 1.33 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.25 Summary: Excavation has been the leading cause of reportable incidents to the State and Federal. There have been no incidents reported known to have resulted from Corrosion. Note: The criteria for significant gas incidents that must be reported to PHMSA are established in 49 CFR Part 191 and include incidents that result in fatalities, in-patient hospitalization, or $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars. Incidents reported to the Alabama PSC only met similar criteria except the limit for costs is $5,000 or more. Significant Incident summary statistics for the U.S are also provided on the PHMSA website. Areas Subject to Flood Damage FEMA Flood Zone Categories B, C, and X Moderate to Low Risk A, AE, A1-30, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, VE, V1-30 High Risk Data obtained from and FEMA maps high-level review of Alagasco’s work locations Work location Anniston Birmingham-Metro BirminghamSouthern Operations BirminghamWestern Operations East Lauderdale Gadsden July 31, 2013 Flood Zone with (or touches) work location boundary as of July 2013 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, AO, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, AH, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 26 Jasper Montgomery Opelika Phenix City Selma St. Clair Tuscaloosa 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 1 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD CONTAINED IN CHANNEL A, AE, AH, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD A, AE, X 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD CONTAINED IN CHANNEL A, AE, X Cathodic Protection Data as of July 2013 Rectifiers Noted in MAGI 80 Work location Birmingham Test Points 1821 Rectifiers 103 Rectifiers on Remote 103 Anniston 935 53 53 47 Gadsden 508 51 51 51 Tuscaloosa 439 47 47 41 Selma 516 17 17 17 Opelika 338 32 32 27 Montgomery 950 54 54 46 TOTALS 5202 357 357 309 CP Data Summary Paper only – test point data prior to 2004 (ERMA implementation), older CP maps ERMA –test points – pipe to soil reading, maintenance plan for scheduling by CP area MAGI – maps, most rectifiers and some ground bed locations Office file cabinets – Corrosion Services department – field and desk files with hard copy CP area folders 5. Databases- Corrosion Services department – 5 year averaging on CP test points 1. 2. 3. 4. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 27 6. Off site – copies of CP areas 7. GPS readings – rectifier locations Guidelines for CP are outlined in the OPM – Construction and Installation section CI6.0. A4.0 Additional Information Needed Identification of Additional Information Needed for IM Program Area of incomplete records or Knowledge Can it be acquired over time through normal activities? Y/N Does Action Plan Completion Exist? Status Y/N FEMA Flood Plain Data for risk model Yes – to be incorporated into GLND Risk Model implementation in fall 2012 Yes Completed 2010 US Census Data for risk model Yes - – to be incorporated into GLND Risk Model implementation in 2013 Yes Pending Completion USGS Soil Data for risk model Yes - – to be incorporated into GLND Risk Model implementation in fall 2012 Yes Yes To be deployed with implementation of RMS Phase 2 in Fall 2012 Detailed excavation damage data including root cause July 31, 2013 Completed Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a Completed 28 Other environmental factors such as land subsidence/landslide data for risk model Yes - – to be incorporated into GLND Risk Model implementation in fall 2012 Yes Overpressure condition predictability for risk model Yes- – to be incorporated into GLND Risk Model implementation in 2013 Yes Pending Completion Obtain map of steam lines in downtown Birmingham Yes Pending Not yet completed Completed Action Plans to Gain Additional Information Over Time Action Plan Scope Gaining Additional Information Incorporate FEMA Flood plain data, US Census information and USGS soil information into MAGI as a layer (will be completed in conjunction with deployment of updated mapping-based risk model in the fall of 2012) Schedule Completion Date Person Responsible and Fall 2012 By Dec 2013 Review feasibility of incorporating other environmental factors into MAGI March 2014 June 2014 Evaluate SCADA information to address overpressure predictability in risk model. Fall 2014 Dec 2014 Evaluate the location of steam lines relative to gas mains in downtown Birmingham Fall 2014 Dec 2014 Knowledge of the gas distribution system will be refined and improved as needed. A record of planned and/or completed improvements (other than those plans for gaining additional information through normal activities, identified in Section 5.5) may be documented, or included by reference, in Appendix A, Section 4. Such efforts may include new data management practices or information gathered through special efforts that are not part of normal activities. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 29 This Appendix contains five year summaries of Alagasco’s system data with additional breakdowns by work locations; including miles of main, number of services, leaks, damages and excavation tickets. This information will be updated on an annual basis. Main Pipe Material 6000 U-bare Ucoated Pr-Bare 5000 Miles of Main 4000 PrCoated Plastic 3000 2000 1000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 30 Unprotected Bare Steel Main 355 350 346.6 348.3 344.2 Miles 345 340 337.2 335 332.8 330 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Unprotected Coated Steel Main 525 519.6 520 517.8 517 516.8 514.3 Miles 515 510 505 500 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 31 Protected Bare Steel Main 308 306 304.0 304302.5 301.0 Miles 302 300 298 296.5 296 294 292.5 292 290 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Protected Coated Steel Main 4540 4,526.4 4520 4,495.4 Miles 4500 4480 4,469.7 4460 4,438.0 4440 4,426.5 4420 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 32 Plastic Main 4472.4 4500 4450 4400 4364.9 4350 4294.5 Miles 4300 4250 4182.8 4200 4150 4100 4050 4000 2008 4030.3 2009 2010 2011 2012 Cast Iron Main 10601047.1 1040 1020 1015 Miles 1000 980 967.9 960 940 928 920 889.2 900 880 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 33 Unknown/ Other Main 56 54 53.4 52 49 Miles 50 48.2 48 46 46 44 42.3 42 40 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Unprotected Bare Steel Services 44000 43500 43000 Number of Services 42436 42500 42000 41616 41500 40897 41000 40395 40500 40069 40000 39500 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 34 Unprotected Coated Steel Services 4000 3800 Number of Services 3600 3400 3,349 3200 3000 2800 2,577 2,532 2,501 2,481 2009 2010 2011 2012 2600 2400 2200 2000 2008 Protected Coated Steel Services 152000 150000 Number of Services 148000 146000 144000 142,377 142000 141,677 139,229 140000 137,518 138000 136,412 136000 134000 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 35 Protected Bare Steel Services 86000 85,536 85500 84,716 Number of Services 85000 84500 84000 83,252 83500 83000 82,229 82500 82000 81,567 81500 81000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Plastic Services 285000 281,037 277,800 280000 273,955 Number of Services 275000 268,879 270000 265000 265,270 260000 255000 250000 245000 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 36 Cast Iron Services 50 45 Number of Services 40 35 30 29 25 23 21 20 16 15 14 10 5 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Copper Services 1240 1220 Axis Title 1200 1,189 1,179 1180 1,159 1160 1,146 1,135 1140 1120 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 37 Work Location Miles of Main by Material Anniston Steel Main 850 804.9 800 809.1 807.3 800.1 Miles 750 700 650 634.5 600 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 The increase in from 2008 to 2009 was due to the realigning of the Leeds area from the July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 38 Birmingham work location to the Anniston work location. Anniston Cast/ Wrought Iron Main 80 70 67.6 61.7 61.5 60 54.4 Miles 50 48.4 40 30 20 10 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 The increase from 2008 to 2009 was due to the realigning of the Leeds area from the Birmingham work location to the Anniston work location. Anniston Plastic Main 600 542.6 550 525.8 561.7 544.1 Miles 500 450 400 350 360.2 300 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 The increase from 2008 to 2009 was due to the realigning of the Leeds area from the July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 39 Birmingham work location to the Anniston work location. Anniston Other/ Unknown Main 5.40 5.20 5.20 5.02 5.00 4.80 4.74 4.60 4.49 4.40 4.20 4.25 4.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Birmingham Steel Main 2060 2040 2,041.7 2020 2000 Miles 1980 1960 1,940.7 1940 1,901.3 1920 1900 1880 1860 2008 1,878.6 2009 1,878.4 2010 2011 2012 The decrease from 2008 to 2009 was due to the realigning of the Leeds area from the July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 40 Birmingham work location to the Anniston work location. Birmingham Ductile Iron Main 1.53 1.52 Miles 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.51 1.50 1.50 1.49 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Birmingham Cast/Wrought Iron Main 900 850 Miles 800 750 729.7 700 703.7 675.1 649.8 650 600 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 647.0 2012 41 Birmingham Plastic Main 1800 1,773.4 1780 1760 1,741.9 1740 1,717.8 1,719.3 Miles 1720 1700 1680 1,659.6 1660 1640 1620 1600 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 The decrease from 2008 to 2009 was due to the realigning of the Leeds area from the Birmingham work location to the Anniston work location. Birmingham Unknown/ Other type Main 50 48 46 44 Miles 42 42.3 39.5 40 38 36 34.3 34 33.0 33.0 2010 2011 32 30 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2012 42 Gadsden Steel Main 595 590.0 590 587.9 586.4 586.1 Miles 585 580 575 571.5 570 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Gadsden Cast /Wrought Iron Main 20 19.4 19 Miles 18 17.4 17 15.9 15.9 15.9 16 15 14 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 43 Gadsden Unknown/Other Main 1.60 1.40 1.34 1.20 1.19 Miles 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 2008 2009 0.08 0.10 2010 2011 0.11 2012 Montgomery Steel Main 900 899 899.4 898.4 898 Miles 897 895.9 896 894.8 895 894 893 892 2008 July 31, 2013 892.4 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 44 Montgomery Ductile Iron Main 0.020 Miles 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.000 2008 2009 0.00 2010 0.00 2011 0.00 2012 Montgomery Cast/Wrought Iron Main 98 97.4 95.8 96 95.0 Miles 94 92 90 87.9 88 86.2 86 84 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 45 Montgomery Plastic Main 650 624.4 600 588.4 581.1 573.8 Miles 550 581.1 500 450 400 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Montgomery Unknown/Other Pipe 0.70 0.6 0.60 Miles 0.50 0.4 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.0 0.00 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 0.0 2011 0.0 2012 46 Opelika Steel Main 450 445 444.0 442.2 Miles 440 435 430 426.2 425 423.9 420 2008 425.4 2009 2010 2011 2012 Opelika Ductile Iron Main 0.010 0.008 Miles 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 47 Opelika Cast/Wrought Iron Main 80 76.3 75.2 72.7 75 72.2 Miles 70 65 59.9 60 55 50 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Opelika Plastic Main 510 505.1 500 486.1 Miles 490 480 466.5 470 463.2 459.3 460 450 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 48 Opelika Unknown/ Other Main 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 Miles 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Selma Steel Main 400 390 380 370 Miles 360 350 340 330 320315.26 327.60 315.86 319.90 315.9 310 300 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 49 Selma Ductile Iron Main 0.80 0.70 0.60 Miles 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Selma Plastic Main 153.8 155 150 Miles 145 140 135.3 134.9 135 135.2 133.9 130 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 50 Selma Cast/Wrought Iron Main 50 Miles 45 40 38.1 37.7 37.7 37.6 35 31.7 30 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Selma Unknown/Other Main 3.45 3.40 3.40 3.36 3.35 3.36 3.30 3.25 3.20 3.21 3.20 3.15 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 51 Tuscaloosa Steel Main 710 706.4 705 703.2 Miles 700 695 690.5 690 687.7 685 680.5 680 675 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tuscaloosa Cast/Wrought Iron Main 30 25.6 25 Miles 20 17.3 15 10.1 10.0 10 5 0 2008 July 31, 2013 0.0 2009 2010 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 2011 2012 52 Tuscaloosa Plastic Main 410 403.1 400 394.6 392.5 Miles 390 380 374.9 370 360 353.5 350 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tuscaloosa Unknown/ Other Main 1.0 0.8 Miles 0.67 0.60 0.5 0.3 0.0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 0.02 0.02 0.02 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 53 Leaks Caused By Equipment on Mains 0.250 0.200 Leaks per Mile 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.062 0.109 0.116 0.098 0.086 ANN 0.023 0.067 0.085 0.063 0.064 BGH 0.126 0.196 0.173 0.136 0.130 GAD 0.010 0.039 0.049 0.065 0.011 MON 0.021 0.053 0.083 0.096 0.121 OPE 0.014 0.079 0.121 0.109 0.066 SEL 0.010 0.073 0.095 0.075 0.024 TUS 0.008 0.015 0.048 0.024 0.007 Birmingham has the highest rate of corrosion leaks per mile. Changes in the rates could be due July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 54 to the decreasing amount of cast iron and bare steel pipe throughout the company. 0.040 Leaks Caused By Natural Forces on Mains 0.035 0.030 Leaks Per Mile 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.021 0.012 0.017 0.012 0.013 ANN 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 BGH 0.036 0.024 0.034 0.026 0.024 GAD 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.000 MON 0.024 0.013 0.009 0.002 0.001 OPE 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.005 0.036 SEL 0.006 0.012 0.016 0.002 0.000 TUS 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.000 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 55 Leaks Caused By Outside Force on Mains 0.007 0.006 0.005 Leaks Per Mile 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 ANN 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 BGH 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.006 GAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 MON 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 OPE 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.000 SEL 0.002 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.000 TUS 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 56 Leaks Caused By Excavation On Mains 0.040 0.035 0.030 Leaks Per Mile 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.026 0.021 0.018 0.020 0.018 ANN 0.015 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.016 BGH 0.034 0.026 0.021 0.020 0.02 GAD 0.015 0.017 0.011 0.014 0.006 MON 0.018 0.006 0.008 0.013 0.013 OPE 0.033 0.029 0.030 0.036 0.034 SEL 0.014 0.030 0.018 0.028 0.026 TUS 0.025 0.026 0.028 0.030 0.014 According to the data, Opelika and Selma are areas of higher risk for excavation damage. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 57 Leaks Caused By Material On Mains 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 Leaks Per Mile 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.054 0.042 0.038 0.019 0.012 ANN 0.041 0.006 0.004 0.001 0.001 BGH 0.092 0.089 0.086 0.042 0.025 GAD 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.006 MON 0.018 0.015 0.006 0.000 0.004 OPE 0.057 0.011 0.008 0.010 0.005 SEL 0.031 0.020 0.008 0.004 0.006 TUS 0.013 0.016 0.009 0.010 0.002 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 58 Leaks Caused By Incorrect Operations On Mains 0.014 0.012 Leaks Per Mile 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 ANN 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 BGH 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 GAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MON 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 OPE 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.012 0.010 SEL 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 TUS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Opelika’s appears to be much more likely to have a leak caused by incorrect operation. The rate of leaks per mile, statewide, is steady. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 59 Leaks Caused By Other On Mains 0.350 0.300 Leaks Per Mile 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.194 0.132 0.164 0.017 0.019 ANN 0.064 0.052 0.044 0.009 0.022 BGH 0.324 0.227 0.298 0.019 0.012 GAD 0.063 0.054 0.028 0.008 0.031 MON 0.222 0.156 0.160 0.004 0.002 OPE 0.024 0.008 0.110 0.071 0.087 SEL 0.133 0.053 0.008 0.008 0.000 TUS 0.037 0.042 0.044 0.005 0.003 Additional training has led to better classification of leaks when repaired, thus reducing the use of the “other” category. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 60 Leaks Caused By Corrosion On Services 0.450 0.400 0.350 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco 0.221 0.221 0.201 0.175 0.178 ANN 0.104 0.105 0.105 0.063 0.063 BGH 0.371 0.399 0.310 0.264 0.309 GAD 0.210 0.273 0.186 0.147 0.194 MON 0.154 0.096 0.128 0.096 0.100 OPE 0.117 0.103 0.191 0.232 0.131 SEL 0.094 0.036 0.072 0.080 0.065 TUS 0.133 0.170 0.193 0.194 0.118 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 61 Leaks Caused By Natural Forces On Services 0.060 0.050 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.013 0.015 0.009 0.027 0.017 ANN 0.015 0.015 0.018 0.014 0.002 BGH 0.019 0.015 0.010 0.046 0.029 GAD 0.005 0.013 0.001 0.005 0.009 MON 0.012 0.027 0.012 0.002 0.002 OPE 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.031 SEL 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.003 TUS 0.003 0.007 0.005 0.054 0.002 2011 increase for Tuscaloosa and Birmingham due to April 27th tornadoes. As with mains, Opelika shows an increase in 2012. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 62 0.400 Leaks Caused by Equipment on Services 0.350 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.083 0.162 0.227 0.162 0.144 ANN 0.034 0.133 0.153 0.073 0.052 BGH 0.159 0.291 0.342 0.265 0.227 GAD 0.034 0.076 0.105 0.096 0.041 MON 0.033 0.067 0.224 0.115 0.146 OPE 0.007 0.020 0.030 0.013 0.020 SEL 0.010 0.037 0.087 0.130 0.143 TUS 0.020 0.038 0.122 0.062 0.038 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 63 Leaks Caused By Excavation On Services 0.250 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.159 0.144 0.134 0.149 0.149 ANN 0.153 0.117 0.126 0.149 0.152 BGH 0.221 0.194 0.167 0.192 0.209 GAD 0.094 0.135 0.109 0.086 0.095 MON 0.064 0.059 0.068 0.090 0.071 OPE 0.141 0.113 0.114 0.109 0.098 SEL 0.066 0.091 0.103 0.089 0.108 TUS 0.194 0.171 0.180 0.195 0.134 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 64 0.040 Leaks Caused By Outside Force On Services 0.035 0.030 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.020 0.013 0.008 0.009 0.014 ANN 0.012 0.019 0.015 0.017 0.014 BGH 0.030 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.024 GAD 0.011 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.000 MON 0.018 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.003 OPE 0.010 0.010 0.004 0.004 0.013 SEL 0.007 0.035 0.028 0.033 0.010 TUS 0.006 0.010 0.003 0.005 0.002 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 65 . Leaks Caused By Material On Services 0.250 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.068 0.060 0.095 0.068 0.022 ANN 0.026 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.004 BGH 0.118 0.112 0.199 0.150 0.041 GAD 0.044 0.046 0.003 0.001 0.015 MON 0.041 0.026 0.032 0.001 0.009 OPE 0.026 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.000 SEL 0.019 0.007 0.007 0.003 0.009 TUS 0.012 0.033 0.040 0.032 0.005 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 66 Leaks Caused By Incorrect Operation On Services 0.020 0.018 0.016 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003 ANN 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 BGH 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.004 GAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 MON 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 OPE 0.017 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.010 SEL 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 TUS 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.001 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 67 Leaks Caused By Other On Services 0.700 0.600 Leaks Per Mile Of Service 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALAGASCO 0.317 0.295 0.367 0.051 0.035 ANN 0.260 0.207 0.341 0.073 0.046 BGH 0.509 0.492 0.587 0.051 0.026 GAD 0.218 0.255 0.179 0.019 0.108 MON 0.182 0.144 0.224 0.004 0.000 OPE 0.029 0.012 0.121 0.205 0.125 SEL 0.156 0.038 0.003 0.012 0.005 TUS 0.175 0.189 0.213 0.024 0.004 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 68 2008-2013 DOT REPORT LEAK CAUSE ANALYSIS Leak Cause/Threat Mains Leaks/mile of main Services Leaks/number of svcs Mains and Services Leaks by Cause Corrosion D D D Natural Forces D R R Material/Weld D D D Incorrect Operations S D S Equipment R R D Excavation D S R Other Outside Forces R D R Other D D D S=STABLE R = RISING D=DECLINING Category General Conclusions Service Leaks by Cause More excavation damages on services than mains. More corrosion leaks on services than mains. Mains Leaks by Cause All Leaks by Year Steady decline in corrosion leaks. Since 2006, all leaks declined through 2009, with a spike in 2010. This increase could be due to our implementation of the "walking-only" surveys to combine the walking and mobile surveys into a single, geographic survey beginning in 2008 with Tuscaloosa. All Leaks on Main by Year Generally declining in number, perhaps due to increased cast iron pipe replacement. All Leaks on Services by Year Generally stable. Declining but still needs to be reduced. Additional training of personnel and RMS implementation in 2012 will help reduce this number. Use of Other Cause Code July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 69 History of Alagasco’s Migration to an Electronic Mapping System For most of its history, Alagasco operated with a system of paper maps to document the location of its pipe and related equipment. Listed below is a summary of Alagasco’s migration to its current electronic mapping system, an ESRI brand product referred to internally as the MAGI system:  1940-1988 o  1988-2003 o  Contracted with Southeastern Repographics to convert the backlog of projects from Autocad to MAGI July 2006 o  Alagasco engineering representatives began creating projects in MAGI. July 2005 o  ESRI began to be implemented as a mapping tool. Conversion of approximately 9000 maps. System began to be known as MAGI. Jan. 2005 o  Autocad format for mapping Nov. 2004 o  Manually-drawn maps ADL completed posting backlog to MAGI Dec. 2007 to present o Created process to track completed projects in MAGI versus our projects shown as complete in the SAP accounting system  All paper maps that were updated prior to the conversion are stored in map cabinets located on the 8th floor of Colonial Plaza.  System Integrity maintains paper copies of AFE projects from 1996 to present on the 11th floor of Colonial Plaza. The remaining projects (1932-1995) are stored off-site with ASI. Project files are also maintained by the GIS Hubs. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 70 Stoner Software as It Is Used in Knowing Alabama Gas Corporation’s Major Gas Distribution Systems Alabama Gas Corporation has used Stoner network analysis software for nearly twenty-five years. The software is a tool that mathematically models the Company’s distribution systems to predict pressures and flows for varying temperatures and customer loads. It not only models the current facilities and customers but also allows for predicting flow and pressure for potential modifications to the facilities and/or customers’ loads. The software allows the Company to have better knowledge of its distribution systems in the following ways: Determine required MAOP’s such that a system is operated at the optimum pressures. Determine if a main segment can be removed without being replaced. Determine locations that require reinforcement. Determine locations to place gauges to monitor and control pressures at locations of predicted low pressure. 5) Determine if an added customer’s load can be served with existing facilities or, if not; determine the best option for reinforcing the system to allow serving of the customer. 6) Determine if an existing main segment or regulator has insufficient capacity. 1) 2) 3) 4) This software is critical to Alagasco’s system design and integrity efforts. The items listed do allow the Company to know its distribution systems in ways it would not without the software. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 71 Know Your System Work Location Summaries Each work location office was requested by Operations Services to furnish a narrative describing its system to help satisfy the Know Your System requirement. Birmingham Division (Information provided by , updated by and The Alagasco-Birmingham Division System is located within the general metropolitan area of Birmingham. The geographic system coverage encompasses approximately 11,550 square miles that reaches from Winston County in the northwest area of the state to Chilton County in the south central belt of the state and St. Clair County in the east to Tuscaloosa County in the west. This area is comprised of eight counties in central Alabama, all within the Alabama state lines. The Birmingham Division serves approximately 260,000 customers living in 48 municipal cities / towns. The eight counties served are: Jefferson, Shelby, St. Clair, Winston, Walker, Tuscaloosa, Chilton, Bibb The distribution system of the Birmingham Division operates in the pressure ranges from 7” W.C. to 720 psig. SYSTEM STATION SUMMARY: The following list is the border stations throughout the Birmingham Division by geographical area: 1. North Birmingham Station is located in the North Smithfield community of North Birmingham. This station delivers into a 300 psig MAOP piping system of 12” coated steel and 16” coated steel systems. This station feeds other major pressure reducing stations in the following areas: Forestdale, Downtown (Northside and Southside), East Feed and West Feed. These systems’ Maximum Allowable Operating Pressures range in the 60 psig, 45 psig, 25 psig and 21” water column (WC). Piping materials include cast iron, coated steel, bare steel and polyethylene (PE) plastic of 2” -16” systems. 2. Roebuck Station is located in the eastern region of Birmingham in the Roebuck area. This station delivers gas into a 500 psig MAOP piping system of 12” coated steel. This 500 psig system feeds these areas: Pinson, Springville, Mountain Brook, Irondale, Vestavia, Hoover, and Cahaba Heights. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 72 Other unincorporated areas along a southern loop of Jefferson County into the Northern Shelby County area are served by this system. The system also connects to a 410 psig MAOP system at the Ruffner Regulator. This 410 psi system provides flow to and from a major feed at the Meadowbrook community of Shelby County, called the Verbena line; a 16” coated steel 720 psig MAOP system. With SCADA operations, these two systems can be configured to allow flows from the 500 psig southward or the 720 psig northward. 3. LNG Plant Remote Station is located in Pinson at the Alagasco liquid natural gas (LNG) Pinson Plant, a peak shaving facility which connects with the Roebuck 500 psig line. The LNG remote system is a pressure reducing site connecting the Roebuck 500 psig line to a 600 psig rated system that acts as a conduit to allow the LNG production gas to serve a northern loop of 12” coated steel system westward to the North Birmingham main at the Sayreton Yard in the North Smithfield area. The westward flowing line configuration described above also allows for LNG production gas to be transported into the western areas of Birmingham and Jefferson County via the 300 psig MAOP system from North Birmingham Station. The Pinson LNG facility has a max capacity of approximately 5 MMch output production. 4. Verbena Station is located in Verbena and serves an approximately 60 mile 16” coated steel 720 psig MAOP line that culminates in the Meadowbrook Community of Northern Shelby County. This feed provides service to: Clanton, Columbiana, Chelsea, and Pelham. This line also serves northeastern unincorporated sections of Shelby County. As noted in item 2 above, this 720 psig line is connected with the Roebuck 500 psig system via a 410 psig system. If other system needs should arise, this connection allows for flexibility of major gas flows into southern areas or into the northern service areas. An 8” PE 60 psig MAOP rated lateral system in the Chelsea area is connected to the Harpersville distribution system (Anniston Division) as system pressure reinforcement. The Columbiana distribution system is connected to the Kinder-Morgan (SNG) Border Station near Montevallo. 5. Genery Gap Station is located in the City of Hoover in western Jefferson County. This is a 345 psig MAOP feed with a predominately 8” coated steel line that is a major feed into the Hoover metropolitan area. This system also has laterals into a 175 psig and 250 psig MAOP coated steel system in the Central Shelby County area with residential and commercial customers. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 73 Genery Gap Station also supplies a 257 psig MAOP 4” coated steel system that serves much of the western Jefferson County Distribution System south and westward to Tuscaloosa and Bibb Counties. Most of the systems served by this station are 60 psig MAOP with coated steel and PE with small commercial and residential customers. The West Blocton system is served by the 257 psig MAOP system. 6. Bessemer #1 is located in North Bessemer. This is a large 150 psig MAOP coated steel system within the Cities of Bessemer, Midfield and some sections of Fairfield. This 150 psig MAOP also reinforces the 100 psig MAOP Oak Grove community in the extreme northwestern areas of Jefferson County. The lateral service areas are predominately 25 psig MAOP coated and bare steel, cast iron, and PE with small commercial and residential customers. This Station is also connected to the Bessemer #2 150 psig MAOP system. These systems are composed of coated and bare steel, cast iron, and PE in the range of 2” – 12” piping. 7. Bessemer # 2 is located in West Bessemer. This is a large station feeding 150 psig, 500 psig, and 600 psig MAOP coated steel systems. The 150 psig system is connected to the Bessemer #1 150 psig system. The 500 psig MAOP system runs west of the Bessemer station culminating at the Million Dollar Lake regulator which serves this residential area. This system also reinforces the Genery Gap 257 psig MAOP system at US Hwy 11 & Kimbrell Cut-Off Rd (West Blocton Feed). The 600 psig MAOP system is a new system that reinforces the Genery Gap 345 psig system in the Hoover area. The lateral systems are composed of coated and bare steel, cast iron, and PE with MAOP’s of 70 psig, 60 psig and 25 psig systems in the range of 2” – 12” piping. 8. Fairfield #1 and #2 Stations are located in the Fairfield metro area. These stations are a 175 psig MAOP 4”– 6” coated steel piping system within the Cities of Fairfield, Midfield and some sections of Western Birmingham. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 74 The lateral service areas are predominately 25 psig MAOP coated and bare steel, cast iron, and PE 2”– 6” with small commercial and residential customers. 9. Forestdale Station is located on Cedar Crest Rd at Suburban Dr in City of Forestdale, in Jefferson County. This station feeds a 60 psig MAOP coated steel system of 2” – 6” piping within the Forestdale, Pratt City and East Thomas communities in Birmingham. This system is also connected to the Birmingham distribution 25 psig MAOP West Feed system from the 10th Av & 31st St N station. The 60 psig system is also reinforced from the North Birmingham 300 psig MAOP system at the Daniel Payne Drive & Cherry Avenue Regulator. The lateral service areas are predominately residential, small commercial and some light industrial customers in the Pratt City area. 10. Oak Grove Station is located on Fields Lane in the northwestern section of Jefferson County. This is a 100 psig MAOP 2” coated steel system that serves predominately residential customers near the communities of Hueytown and Bessemer. This 100 psig MAOP system is also reinforced off the 150 psig MAOP Bessemer #1 line at Mud Creek Rd regulator. 11. Pleasant Grove Station is located on Virginia Mines Rd at Paul Lane which is north of Bessemer and west of Hueytown. This is a 200 psig MAOP system consisting of coated and bare steel, cast iron, and PE of 2” – 6” size piping. The lateral service areas are predominately residential with some small commercial. This system is reinforced by the Bessemer #1 6” coated steel line into the Oak Grove area which is separated with a check-valve between the two different MAOP systems. 12. Helena #1 Station is located on Shelby Co Hwy 17 in Helena. This is a 350 psig MAOP 6” coated steel system serving the Helena, Alabaster and Pelham July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 75 communities. The lateral service areas are predominately residential and small commercial with piping systems of 2” – 6” coated steel, cast iron, and PE. These lateral systems range from 38 psig – 60 psig MAOP. The Helena #1 - 38 psig MAOP system is reinforced by the Helena #2 station and from the Port South regulator on Shelby County Hwy 52 East. 13. Helena #2 Station is located on Shelby County Hwy 52 West in Helena. This is a 600 psig MAOP 6” coated steel pipe system connected to the 38 psig MAOP Helena system via a district regulator station near this site. The lateral service area is predominately residential and small commercial in areas of Helena with piping systems of 2” – 6” coated steel, cast iron, and PE. This system serves an existing 38 psig MAOP system. 14. Alabaster Stations #1, #2 & #3. The stations are located at: #1- AL Hwy 119 at Kent Dairy Rd #2 – Shelby Co Hwy 44 @ Navajo Hills #3 – US Hwy 31 S @ Shady Acres Rd. These stations are integrated and predominately serve the metro area of Alabaster and some partial sections of Pelham, Helena and is connected to the Verbena HP system via the Weatherly MP system. This is a 60 psig MAOP system of 1 ¼” – 6” coated steel, cast iron and PE piping. Stations #2 and #3 also serve separate 350 psig MAOP 6” coated steel lines to two separate large aggregate industrial locations. The lateral systems are residential, small commercial and some industrial locations. 15. Columbiana Station is located at AL Hwy 22 at Shelby Co Hwy 107 in Montevallo. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 76 This 177 psig MAOP 6” coated steel system extends approximately 20 miles south and serves the metro area of the City of Columbiana and a small area of Montevallo. Lateral systems are 60 psig MAOP and predominately residential, with some small commercial. 16. Montevallo Station is located on AL Hwy 25 near Calera. This station and the Chilton County Station are within the same Kinder- Morgan (SNG) complex. This is approximately 20 miles of a 100 psig MAOP 6” coated steel system that serves the general metro area of the City of Montevallo. Due to a transportation agreement between KinderMorgan (SNG) the City of Wilton and City of Montevallo, in place at the time of the acquisition of this system in May 1992, this 100 psig MAOP system is connected to a station located at AL Hwy 25 & Shelby Co Hwy 73 that delivers gas to the City of Wilton LDS, which is in all other ways, independent of Alagasco operations. This is approximately 20 miles of 100 psig MAOP 6” coated steel system that serves the general metro area of the City of Montevallo. The Alagasco lateral systems are 18 psig MAOP and serve predominately residential and some small commercial customers. 17. Chilton County Station is also located on AL Hwy 25 near Calera. This system is a 300 psig MAOP 6” coated steel line that runs approximately 20 miles culminating at the cities of Jemison and Thorsby. The line from the City of Jemison to the City of Thorsby operates as a 150 psig MAOP 4” coated steel line. Lateral systems operate at 60 psig MAOP with predominately residential, and some small commercial. 18. Clanton Station is located in the Transco Gas complex with the BirminghamVerbena Station on US Hwy 31 S. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 77 This is a 150 psig 8” coated steel line serving the metro area of the City of Clanton. The lateral systems operate in various 18 psig MAOP (older, established areas) and 60 psig MAOP in more recently developed areas. 19. Jasper Station is located on Brick Plant Rd in the Parrish Community of Walker County. This is a 150 psig MAOP 6” coated steel line serving the general metro area of Jasper. The lateral systems operate in various 25 psig MAOP established areas and 60 psig MAOP in more recently developed areas. 20. Parrish-Oakman Station is located on Brick Plant Rd in the Parrish Community of Walker County. This is a 150 psig MAOP 3” coated steel line serving the general metro areas of Oakman and Parrish. The lateral systems operate in 40 psig MAOP established areas and 60 psig MAOP in more recently developed areas. 21. Double Springs Station is located on AL Hwy 195 at Mayhall Rd in Haleyville. This station is approximately 20 miles of 2 ½” coated steel 275 psig MAOP. The 275 psig line is reinforced with a Satellite LNG facility connected on AL Hwy 195 between Haleyville and Double Springs. This facility has the capacity of approximately 70 Mcfh. This facility is only manned during extreme winter conditions. The lateral systems operate at 60 psig MAOP with coated steel and plastic in the1 ¼” – 2 ½” range. 22. Miller Steam Plant Station is located on Flat Top Rd in West Jefferson County. This is a dedicated 10” coated steel line for a power generation plant operated by Alabama Power July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 78 Company. This line operates at a 275 psig MAOP. The Birmingham Distribution System consists of approximately 961 district pressure regulating stations. These stations are configured with: regulator-relief, regulator-passive monitor and regulator- working monitor sensing systems. These station components range from 720 psig to 7” Water Column pressures in the various MAOP ranges. There are approximately 389 large commercial and industrial customer settings that are maintained. The pressure and odorization equipment is maintained and inspected by a group of approximately 21 operating personnel. These locations are fitted with equipment ranging from older EMCO balance-valve regulators, American Series 1800-2000 diaphragm regulators to the new age “boot” type Fisher and Mooney flow regulators in sizes of 1” – 10” flange or NPT connections. The Birmingham Division delivered approximately 22,000,000 Mcf of gas in rate year 2009. The distribution system gas delivery enters at 27 city gate (border station) locations. The odorization systems are the injection-type pumps with 2 locations equipped with the “sweep type” units. These locations are read on a monthly basis, with the “sweep type” units on a biweekly basis. The Birmingham distribution system is managed and monitored via the SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system in the Distribution Control Room located at the Birmingham Service Center. This control point is manned and monitored on a 24 hour basis by 4 Station Operators and 2 Utility Station Operators. This site also assumes SCADA responsibilities for all Divisions statewide. Montgomery Division (Information provided by and ) The Montgomery Division is responsible for maintaining Alagasco’s natural gas facilities in the following Alabama Counties and communities: Montgomery County: Montgomery and Pike Road Autauga County: July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 79 Prattville, Pine Level, Billingsley (Tenaska Plant 1 and 2) Elmore County: Millbrook, Coosada, Wetumpka, Elmore, Marbury, Deatsville, Eclectic, Friendship Lowndes County: Burkville (SABIC Plastic Plant, formerly GE Plastics) Chilton County: Verbena The Montgomery County area is served from three (3) High-Pressure Mains that run down from north of the Alabama River and Tallapoosa River; which separates Montgomery County from the other Tri-County areas. The 3 gas mains are described below: East Feed The 12” Steel Main (344 psig MAOP) is fed from the 10” Steel Main located on U.S. Highway 31 in Prattville just north of the U.S. Highway 31 and McQueen Smith Road intersection. The 10” Steel Main is fed from the Regulator Station located on Coosada Road in Coosada just east of the Kennedy Avenue intersection. The 12” high-pressure main runs south to Montgomery to a point ending near the intersection of U.S. Highway 31 and Western Boulevard. At this location, there is a below ground Regulator / Monitor Station where the pressure is regulated at 158 psig. Central Feed The 12” Steel (600 psig MAOP) is fed from the MO 5/6 Border Station located on Airport Road in the Millbrook / Elmore area. This feed runs south to the Old No. 1 Border Station in Montgomery which is located north of the Northern Boulevard just east of Briarbrook Drive. The 12” Steel Main passes through the Old No.1 Border Station and runs east along the Northern Boulevard to the U.S. Highway 231 at Madison Park Regulator Station; where the pressure is regulated at 330 psig (feeds the 355 psig MAOP systems). The Old No. 1 Border Station regulates the pressures at 160 psig (feeds the 175 psig MAOP system). West Feed July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 80 The 8” Steel Main (600 psig MAOP) is fed from the No. 2 Border Station located on U.S. Highway 231 in Wetumpka. This main runs south to U.S. Highway 231 just north of the Tallapoosa River; where the main size changes from an 8” Steel Main to a 10” Steel Main. The 10” Steel Main runs south along U.S. Highway 231 and crosses the Tallapoosa River; where it ends at the Tallapoosa River Regulator Station; where the pressure is regulated at 320 psig. This regulator station serves as a backup feed into the 355 PSIG MAOP gas systems serving Montgomery. The Montgomery County Distribution System consists of high-pressure protected steel, medium-pressure protected steel, bare steel, plastic pipe, and cast iron. This distribution system operates at several different MAOPS; noted below:         355 psig System (U.S. Hwy 231 @ Madison Park north to the Tallapoosa River Station and south to the Troy Highway @ Southern Boulevard intersection) This system feed supports all of the systems noted below. 344 psig System (West Montgomery) 275 psig System (East Blvd @ Atlanta Hwy; East Feed) 160 psig System (East Blvd @ Atlanta Hwy; West Feed) 175 psig System (Old No. 1 Border Station; Troy Highway @ McGhee Road Regulator Station; Western Blvd @ U.S. Hwy 31 Regulator Station) 60 psig System (East Montgomery) The 60 psig systems is a very well integrated system. 25 psig System (North, South and Central Montgomery) The 25 psig systems is a very well integrated system. Low-Pressure System (Utilization; downtown Montgomery) The Low-Pressure Distribution System, which mainly consists of cast iron pipe, and bare steel pipe, is reviewed annually for possible replacement. The Low-Pressure System is very well integrated system. The Autauga County area is served from 3 Regulator Stations (No. 3 Border Station, No. 4 Border Station and the Coosada Road Regulator Station in Coosada). The No. 4 Border Station (10” Steel - 720 psig MAOP) serves the SABIC Plastic Plant in Burkville, but also serves as a backup feed in the 344 psig MAOP System serving Prattville, Montgomery and Millbrook. The Autauga County Distribution System consists of high-pressure protected steel, medium-pressure protected steel and plastic pipe operating at the following MAOPs:      July 31, 2013 344 psig System (Coosada Road Regulator Station) 180 psig System (No. 3 Border Station; U.S. Hwy 31 north of Prattville) 60 psig System (Central and South Prattville) 47 psig System (East Prattville) 58 psig System (North and West Prattville) Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 81 The Tenaska I and II Power Generating Plants, located in the Billingsley area of Autauga County, is served from a Border Station served by TRANSCO located north of the Plants and from a Border Station served by SONAT located south of these Plants. Tenaska Plant I is served from a 14” Steel HighPressure Main (800 psig MAOP) originating at the TRANSCO Border Station located on Autauga County Road 62. Tenaska Plant II is served from a 16” Steel High-Pressure Main (800 psig MAOP) originating at the TRANSCO Border Station and a 14” Steel High-Pressure Main (1200 psig MAOP) originating at the SONAT Border Station located on Autauga County Road 40. The Elmore County area is comprised of several communities which are served from several different distribution systems. Millbrook, Coosada, and Elmore are primarily fed from the MO 5/6 Border Station (720 psig MAOP) located on Airport Road in Coosada. The Verbena Border Station, located on U.S. Highway 31 in Chilton County, serves as a backup feed (Transco) into this area as well. These distribution systems consist of high-pressure protected steel, medium-pressure protected steel and plastic pipe operating at the following MAOPs:     720 psig System (MO 5/6 Border Station on Airport Road in Coosada) 200 psig System (Old Elmore Border Station) 125 psig System (Coosada Road Regulator Station; ends at Mortar Creek Reg. Station) 60 psig System (Medium-Pressure Distribution System; both integrated and isolated systems) Wetumpka is served primarily from the No. 2 Border Station (83 psig MAOP) located on U.S. Highway 231 in Wetumpka. The Redland Community is served from the 600 psig MAOP System which originates at the No. 2 Border Station in Wetumpka and runs south to the U.S. Highway 231 / Tallapoosa River Tower Station. Both the Wetumpka and Redland distribution systems consist of high-pressure protected steel, medium-pressure protected steel and plastic pipe operating at the following MAOPs:     600 psig System (No. 2 Border Station in Wetumpka south to Redland) 83 psig System (No. 2 Border Station in Wetumpka north up U.S.231) 60 psig System (Isolated Distribution System feeds) 25 psig System (Isolated downtown Wetumpka system) The Russell Border Station (690 psig MAOP), located west of Wetumpka off of Alabama Highway 14, was primarily installed to serve Russell Corporation. The 6” Steel High-Pressure Main serves several residential customers located along Highway 14 and County Road 84 (Sanford Lane). July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 82 The Marbury and Deatsville communities are served from the 12” Steel - 720 psig MAOP system located along Alabama Highway 143 and County Road 7 (Deatsville Highway). The Eclectic and Friendship communities are served from the Eclectic Border Station (275 psig MAOP). Both of these distribution systems consist of high-pressure protected steel, medium-pressure protected steel and plastic pipe operating at the following MAOPs:    275 psig System (Eclectic Border Station located on Blackjack Rd.) 60 psig System (Isolated Distribution Systems served from the 275 psig system) 17 psig System (the downtown Eclectic distribution system) The SABIC Plastics Plant (formerly GE Plastics), located in the Burkville Community of Lowndes County, is served from a 10” Steel High-Pressure Main (720 psig MAOP) originating at the No. 4 Border Station in Autauga County. The 10” Steel Main serves several residential customers located along its route. This system feed also serves as a backup feed into Prattville’s 10” Steel 344 psig MAOP Distribution System. The Verbena Community, located in Chilton County, is served from a 12” Steel High-Pressure Main (720 psig MAOP) originating at the MO 5/6 Border Station located on Airport Road in Coosada. The Verbena Border Station (720 psig MAOP), located on U.S. Highway 31 south of the Alabama Highway 22 intersection, serves as a backup feed into this distribution system. The 12” Steel Main serves several residential customers located along its route. Tuscaloosa Work Location (Information provided by and The Tuscaloosa Distribution System covers 6 counties serving approximately 40,000 customers; Tuscaloosa County, Pickens County, Greene County, Hale County, Perry County, and Bibb County which are all located in west-central Alabama. In Tuscaloosa County the following municipalities are served: Northport, Tuscaloosa, Coker, Brookwood, Coaling, and Vance. The municipalities of Reform, Eutaw, Akron, Moundville, Brent, and Centreville are covered in the remaining 5 counties. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 83 Tuscaloosa’s gas is purchased at 10 different border stations: Reform station is located in Pickens County; Moore’s Bridge, Tuscaloosa # 1, Tuscaloosa #2, Tuscaloosa #3, Greene-Hale, Mercedes, and Brookwood stations are all located in Tuscaloosa County; Moundville station is in Hale County; Brent station is located in Perry County. The Moore’s Bridge station provides a 340 PSIG (pound-force per square inch gauge) MAOP (maximum allowable operating pressure) feed serving much of Northport. There is a check valve located on the south end of this feed connecting this system to the 175 PSIG MAOP system which is fed from the Tuscaloosa #1 station. The 175 PSIG MAOP system serves much of Tuscaloosa and Northport. The 340 PSIG MAOP system contains several district regulator stations which reduces the pressure down to either a 60 PSIG MAOP system or a 25 PSIG MAOP system to serve many customers. The 175 PSIG MAOP system also contains a few district regulator stations cutting the pressure down to a 25 PSIG MAOP. The integrated 25 PSIG MAOP system is the heart of The Tuscaloosa Distribution System and has feeds coming from Moore’s Bridge, Tuscaloosa #3, Tuscaloosa #1, Tuscaloosa #2, and Greene-Hale. The 25 PSIG MAOP system serves most of Tuscaloosa and Northport. The Tuscaloosa #3 station provides a 175 PSIG MAOP feed serving Coker and the west edge of Northport. This system contains district regulator stations cutting the 175 PSIG MAOP down to medium pressure to serve these cities. The Tuscaloosa #2 station provides a 300 PSIG MAOP feed for the integrated 25 PSIG MAOP system and several stand alone 60 PSIG MAOP systems through district regulators. It provides a feed for Tuscaloosa and Coaling. There is also a check valve connecting the 300 PSIG MAOP system to the Mercedes 500 PSIG MAOP. The Mercedes station feeds the Mercedes plant and Vance. The Green-Hale station contains a 400 PSIG MAOP feed serving Moundville, Akron, and Eutaw. It also feeds some of the integrated 25 PSIG MAOP system. The Green-Hale system and the 300 PSIG MAOP system is connected via a closed valve. The Green-Hale station is back fed from the Moundville station which is also a 400 PSIG MAOP system. This feed serves many 60 PSIG MAOP stand alone systems through district regulators. Moundville is served by a 17 PSIG MAOP, Akron by a 17 PSIG MAOP, and Eutaw by a 23 PSIG MAOP. The Brookwood tap which is a standalone system has a 720 PSIG MAOP. It serves all of Brookwood, and has several district regulators reducing pressure to a 60 PSIG MAOP. Brookwood is July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 84 fed via high pressure regulators (HPRs), and standalone 60 PSIG MAOP systems. The Reform border station also serves a standalone system. Reform is the only Tuscaloosa System that has no high pressure gas. Reform contains a 50 PSIG MAOP, and a 15 PSIG MAOP. Brent and Centreville are served from the Brent Border station. The Brent and Centreville system is another one of Tuscaloosa’s standalone systems. From the border station there is a 122 PSIG MAOP high pressure line that feeds Tuscaloosa’s customers in these two cities. This pressure is reduced by regulators to a 55 PSIG MAOP in several places. There is one regulator in this system that reduces the pressure to a 10 PSIG MAOP serving very few customers. Selma Work Location (Information provided by ) The Selma Work Location manages facilities in seven counties that range from municipal systems to transmission lines. The overview from the previous year listed an eighth county (Autauga) as having Alagasco facilities. It has been removed due to International Paper exercising its option to purchase these facilities. The municipal systems are diverse and have high pressure, medium pressure, and low pressure lines. The piping consists of protected steel, bare steel, cast iron, and plastic. The municipalities served are Selma, Valley Grande, Demopolis, Linden, Thomaston, Marion, Uniontown, Greensboro, and Newbern. The counties that have facilities maintained by the Selma Work Location include Dallas, Choctaw, Sumter, Marengo, Greene, Hale, and Perry. Listed below is a more comprehensive breakdown with a general description of the area(s) and facilities in place. In Dallas County the municipalities of Selma and Valley Grande are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. The customer base is diversified with customers ranging from residential, large and small commercial, and large and small industrial. Three stations feed the Selma system. Selma # 1 located on AL Hwy 22, Selma # 2 located on County Road 84, and Selma # 3 located on County Road 63. All three stations are located to the north or northeast of Selma. International Paper is served by high pressure protected steel lines coming to the plant, one fully dedicated that originates in Autauga County. The system consists of high pressure protected steel, and a combination of protected steel, plastic, bare steel, and cast iron on medium pressure. The only low pressure system in the Selma Work Location system is located in the downtown area of Selma and consists of cast iron. Projects are reviewed annually for potential replacement of cast iron and bare steel. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 85 In Marengo County the municipalities of Demopolis, Linden, and Thomaston are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. Each municipal area is served by independent systems that are not contingent to each other. Alabama Power has a power generating plant north of Demopolis located in Greene County that is served by a dedicated line starting just east of Demopolis. The feed for the Demopolis system comes from south of Demopolis up AL Hwy 43. This system in has been upgraded with the retirement of cast iron to a protected steel and plastic system in recent years. The feed for the Linden system comes from the south up AL Hwy 43. Linden has protected high pressure steel, cast iron, bare steel, and plastic. The feed for the Thomaston system comes from the north of Thomaston down AL Hwy 25. Thomaston has protected high pressure protected steel, cast iron, bare steel, and plastic. Areas with cast iron and bare steel are reviewed annually for replacement. In Perry County the municipalities of Marion and Uniontown are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. Each municipal area is served by independent systems that are not contingent to each other. The feed for Marion comes from the south up County Road 45. The feed for Uniontown comes from the north down AL Hwy 61. Both of these areas have high pressure protected steel, and medium pressure protected steel and plastic. In Hale County the municipalities of Greensboro and Newbern are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. The two municipalities are served by a single contingent system. The feed for both Greensboro and Newbern comes from the south up AL Hwy 61. Both of these areas have high pressure protected steel, and medium pressure protected steel and plastic. In Choctaw County no municipalities are served, but there are facilities serving two large industrial customers here. The Tamko Industries plant produces roofing shingles and is served be a high pressure protected steel line. This line is not dedicated and less than a dozen residential customers are also served. The other large industrial is the James River paper mill located near Pennington. There are two dedicated high pressure protected steel lines serving the plant. One is coming from south of the mill from a Transco tap. The other line is coming from the northwest from a Southern Natural tap located in Sumter County (Bellamy line). Opelika Division (Information provided by , , and ) The Opelika Division manages facilities in five counties that range from distribution systems to July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 86 transmission lines. The distribution systems are diverse and have high pressure and medium pressure lines. The piping consists of protected steel, bare steel, cast iron, and plastic. The municipalities served are Opelika, Auburn, Tuskegee, Notasulga, Phenix City, Smiths Station, Valley, Lanett, and Lafayette. The counties that have facilities maintained by the Opelika Division include Lee, Macon, Russell, Chambers, and Tallapoosa. Listed below is a more comprehensive breakdown with a general description of the area(s) and facilities in place. In Lee County the municipalities of Opelika, Auburn, and Smiths Station are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. The customer base is diversified with customers ranging from residential, large and small commercial, and large and small industrial. Five stations feed the Opelika system. Opelika # 1 accessed via Interstate Drive, Opelika # 2 located on Old Columbus Rd, Opelika #3 (Southeast Station) located on Al. Hwy 169, Auburn #1 located on Carpenter Way, and Auburn #2 (Loachapoka) located on S. US Hwy. 29. All Five stations are integrated. Smiths Station is intergraded with the Phenix City System which is served in Russell County. The system consists of high pressure protected steel, and a combination of protected steel, plastic, and cast iron on medium pressure. Projects are reviewed annually for potential replacement of cast iron and bare steel. East Alabama Medical Center is located Opelika and served from our high pressure facilities. Auburn University’s natural gas distribution system is served from the high pressure system. In Macon County the municipalities of Tuskegee and Notasulga are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. The customer base is diversified with customers ranging from residential, large and small commercial, and large and small industrial. Two stations feed the Tuskegee system. Tuskegee #1 located on North Ashdale Drive and Tuskegee #2 located on Al. Hwy 199. The two systems are integrated. Notasulga located on Al Hwy. 81 is an independent system. The systems consist of high pressure protected steel, and a combination of protected steel, bare steel, plastic, and cast iron on medium pressure. Projects are reviewed annually for potential replacement of cast iron and bare steel. The VA Hospital and Tuskegee University are located in Tuskegee. In Russell County the municipalities of Phenix City and Smith Station are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. The customer base is diversified with customers ranging from residential, large and small commercial, and large and small industrial. Three station feed the Phenix City system. Phenix City #1 located at 5th Ave., Phenix City #2 located at US Hwy 80, Phenix City #3 located at Meadow Lane. Phenix City #1 and Phenix City #2 are intergrated through two medium pressure July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 87 systems. These systems feed several integrated and independent systems. Phenix City #3 feeds independent medium pressure and high pressure systems. The system consists of high pressure protected steel, and a combination of protected steel, plastic and cast iron on medium pressure. Projects are reviewed annually for potential replacement of cast iron and bare steel. Jack Hughston Memorial and Regional Rehabilitation Hospitals are located in Phenix City. The Phenix City District, which is a part of the Opelika Division, manages facilities in two counties that range from municipal distribution systems to high pressure lines. The municipal systems are entirely medium pressure lines serving Phenix City and Smiths in Russell and Lee Counties. The high pressure system serves industrial customers in Phenix City’s Industrial Park. Listed below is a comprehensive breakdown with a general description of the area(s) and facilities in place. In Russell County the municipality of Phenix City is served as well as the Ladonia and Fort Mitchell communities both of which are unincorporated. The customer base ranges from residential, large and small commercial and large and small industrial. Three border stations serve the Phenix City and Ladonia system. Phenix City #1 is located on Brickyard Road near Dillingham Street, Phenix City #2 is located on US Highway 80 and Phenix City #3 is located on Meadow Lane Drive near Brickyard Road. Border Stations #1 and #2 are interconnecting feeds that support one another with multiple medium pressure feeds. Mains consist of plastic and cast iron lines. Border Station #3 is a diverse system that has both medium and high pressure feeding almost exclusively small and large industrial customers. There are, however, a small number of residential customers served from this station. Mains in this system consist of protected steel and plastic lines. The Fort Mitchell community is fed from the high pressure system of Border Station #3. In Lee County, Smiths and some rural parts of the county are fed from Phenix City Border Station #1 and Phenix City #2. Mains in this area consist of steel and plastic lines. The customer base consists mainly of residential, but has some small commercial accounts. In Chambers County the municipalities of Valley, Lanett, and Lafayette are served as well as parts of the county that are unincorporated. The customer base is diversified with customers ranging from residential, large and small commercial, and large and small industrial. Three stations feed Valley and Lanett system. Shawmut located at 40th St., Fairfax located at Hodges St,. and Riverview located at Mills Street. One station feeds Lafayette. Lafayette Gate located on a private road near Fairfax by-pass. These systems feed several integrated and independent systems. The Valley and Lanett systems consists of high July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 88 pressure protected steel, and a combination of protected steel and plastic on medium pressure. The Lafayette system consists of high pressure protected steel, and a combination of protected steel, cast iron, and plastic on medium pressure. Projects are reviewed annually for potential replacement of cast iron and bare steel. Lanier Health Service is located in Valley. Lafayette is fed from an independent system. This system feeds several integrated and independent systems. In Tallapoosa County the distribution system only passes along Al Hwy. 14 from Macon County then returns to Macon County and is an independent system. Gadsden Work Location (Information provided by and ) The Gadsden Distribution system is composed of seven (7) Border Stations. These Border Stations serve seventy-one (71) medium pressure District Regulator Stations, one (1) high pressure District Regulator Station and fifteen (15) low pressure District Regulator Stations. The Gadsden system serves approximately 22,577 customers as of June 2013. Border Stations #1 and #6 Border Station #1 and Border Station #6, both 150 psig MAOP, were tied together in 2002. This system includes two (2) river crossings, the E. Gadsden crossing and the Southside crossing. The Southside crossing is located on the river bottom. The pipe in this 150 psig MAOP ranges from 1” steel to 18” steel. This system feeds forty (47) medium pressure District Regulators. These medium pressure regulators include four (4) integrated 60 psig MAOP systems, one (1) 50 psig MAOP integrated system and one (1) integrated 30 psig MAOP system. The 30 psig MAOP system is located in Hokes Bluff and contains cast iron and bare steel mains. The 150 psig MAOP system also serves eleven (11) one-way feed 60 psig MAOP systems and fourteen (14) one-way feed systems ranging from 10 psig MAOP to 30 psig MAOP. The 150 psig MAOP serves the medium pressure District Regulator Stations that feed the four (4) Housing Complexes and the fifteen (15) low pressure District Regulator Stations located in the downtown area of Gadsden. The low pressure system, 14” W.C. MAOP, consist of pipe ranging from 1-1/4” to 10” in size and composed of cast iron, coated steel, bare steel, and plastic. This is the only low pressure system in the Gadsden Work Location. The cities and communities served by Border Station #1 and #6 are Gadsden, East Gadsden, Southside, July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 89 Glencoe, Hokes Bluff, Whorton Bend, Webster Chapel, Silver Lakes and part of Rainbow City. Border Station #2 Border Station #2 is a 150 psig MAOP system. This system is made up of steel pipe ranging from 11/2” to 6”. This system serves one (1) integrated 60 psig MAOP District Regulator Station, two (2) integrated 50 psig MAOP District Regulator Stations, one (1) one-way feed 50 psig MAOP District Regulator Station and six (6) one-way feed 60 psig District Regulator Stations. Also in conjunction with the feeds from Border Stations #1 and #6 serve the medium pressure District Regulators that serve the 4 Housing Complexes. In 2009, a District Regulator Station was put in service on Martin Rd. This station is tied to the 500 psig MAOP system coming from Border Station #4. This station is regulating from 500 psig to 150 psig and is tied into the feed, 150 psig MAOP, coming from Border Station #2 for a back-feed. The cities and communities served by Border Station #2 are Steele, Attalla, Reece City, and part of Gadsden. There is a check valve installed at the end of the main in Steele to separate the 150 psig MAOP coming from Border Station #2 from the 200 psig MAOP coming from Border Station #5. Border Station #3 Border Station #3 is a 150 psig MAOP system. The system consists of steel pipe ranging from 2” to 8”. This 150 psig MAOP serves one (1) integrated 35 psig MAOP system that serves the N. Gadsden area and two (2) District Regulator Stations that are a part of a 60 psig MAOP integrated system. The N. Gadsden river crossing is part of this 150 psig system. The cities and communities served by Border Station #3 are E. Gadsden, N. Gadsden, Glencoe, Southside, part of Gadsden and the mountain area of Gadsden. Border Station #4 Border Station #4 was completely rebuilt in 2009 as a part of the Keystone project and the widening of Al. Hwy. 77. This station now provides two (2) MAOP feeds, a 150 psig MAOP and a 500 psig MAOP. The 150 psig MAOP system consist of 4” and 6” steel pipe. The system serves three (3) integrated 60 psig MAOP District Regulator stations and one July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 90 (1) one-way feed 60 psig MAOP District Regulator Station. The cities and communities served by the 150 psig MAOP system are Rainbow City, Riddles Bend area and part of Gadsden. The 500 psig MAOP system is made up of 6” steel pipe and serves one (1) 150 psig MAOP District Regulator Station which back feeds into the Border Station #2 150 psig MAOP system. The system also serves one 60 psig MAOP District Regulator Station which is part of an integrated system. This system serves the Keystone Plant. Border Station #5 Border Station #5 is a 200 psig MAOP system. The system is composed of 2” steel. The system serves two (2) 60 psig MAOP District Regulator Stations, one (1) one-way feed 60 psig MAOP district Regulator Station and one (1) 60 psig MAOP District Regulator Station that is a part of an integrated system. The cities and communities served are Steele, St. Clair Co. and the Canoe Creek area in Etowah Co. This 200 psig MAOP system is separated from the 150 psig MAOP system from Border Station #2 by a check valve at the end of the main in Steele. Border Station #8 Border Station #8 is a 500 psig MAOP system. The system serves two (2) 60 psig MAOP District Regulator Stations that create an integrated system and is composed of 2”, 4” and 6” steel pipe. The area served is the City of Ashville and the Whitney Junction area. Future plans for the Gadsden Distribution System is to extend the 500 psig MAOP system from Border Station #4 to a point of tie in with the 150 psig MAOP system from Border Stations #1 and #6 to support the feeds to Southside, Whorton Bend area and Rainbow City. Also, to create a two-way feed to the mountain area of Gadsden. This area has approximately 1,875 customers on a one-way feed. East Lauderdale: The East Lauderdale Distribution system is served by one (1) Border Station. This Border Station provides gas supply to fifty-six (56) medium pressure District Regulator Stations. The East Lauderdale system serves approximately 5,000 customers. The main in the system consists of ¾” to 6” coated steel and plastic piping. The distribution system is July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 91 comprised of 2 separate MAOP systems. The high pressure system has a 350 psig MAOP, with the remainder of the system being medium pressure and having a 60 psig MAOP. The design of the medium pressure District Regulator feeds are forty-four (44) one-way feeds and twelve (12) integrated District Regulator Stations. The cities and communities served by the Distribution System include Anderson, Center Star, Greenhill, Happy Hollow, Killen, Lexington, and Rogersville. Anniston Work Location (Information provided by and The Anniston Division covers a six county area and serves approximately 38,680 customers as of June 2013:        Calhoun Cleburne Talladega St. Clair Shelby Jefferson Geographically spread out, our service area is approximately sixty-three (63) miles from Heflin to Leeds measuring east to west and thirty-five (35) miles from Ragland to Harpersville measuring north to south. System Descriptions Within the Anniston Division Operations there are twelve (12) separate natural gas distribution systems. These systems are: Anniston/Oxford (AN01, AN02, AN03, & AN08) Heflin (AN04) Talladega (TA01 & TA02) Lincoln #1 (TA03) Riverside, Lincoln #2 (TA04) Talladega Raceway, Lincoln #3 (TA06) Vincent/Harpersville (TA07) Pell City/Oakridge/Eden (TA08, TA09, & TA10) Ragland (TA11) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 92 Leeds/Moody/Branchville/Odenville/Springville/Margaret In addition to the different systems Anniston has four (3) farm taps. Acton (AN06) - Retired in 2013 Joe Bailey (AN07) Cook Springs Riverside East, Lincoln #4 (Clow or TA05) The following pages contain a description of each of these systems. The Anniston/Oxford System (AN01, AN02, AN03, & AN08) By far, the most complicated of the division’s gas distribution systems is the Anniston/Oxford System. It serves the Anniston, Alexandria, Weaver, Blue Mountain, Saks, Lenlock, McClellan, Golden Springs, Oxford, Hobson City, Friendship, Choccolocco, Coldwater, and Munford areas. This system also serves a small portion of the City of Jacksonville. This system is served with gas from four (4) Southern Natural Gas taps. All taps are located in close proximity to the Interstate 20 corridor. Station AN01 is located in Oxford at the intersection of Rose Street and Hickory Street. Station AN02 is located in Anniston in front of Lee Brass Corporation off Golden Springs Road near Highway 78. Station AN03 is located in the Coldwater area west of Coldwater Road on Wilson Willingham Road just north of Interstate 20, and Station AN08 is located in on the west bank of Choccolocco Creek on Old Downing Mill Road in the Choccolocco Community. Station AN01 is a 100 psig MAOP system and feeds north out of Oxford into the West Anniston area. Station AN02 is a 125 psig MAOP system that feeds north into the Golden Springs community, west into the Dearmanville community and south into the Friendship community. Station AN03 is a split system with a 125 psig MAOP system feeding south into the Town of Munford, west into the Bynum community, east into the City of Oxford and north into the Coldwater community. This same station also serves a 250 psig MAOP system that feeds the Anniston Army Depot and north into the Saks community where it serves the 125 psig system that serves the Alexandria, Weaver, Blue Mountain, Saks, Lenlock, McClellan, North Anniston and Jacksonville areas. Station AN08 is a 140 psig MAOP system that feeds the Choccolocco and Dearmanville communities. The Anniston System serves approximately 25,265 customers. The Heflin System (AN04) The Heflin System is located approximately fifteen (15) miles east of Anniston, just north of Interstate 20. It is served by one (1) Southern Natural Tap (AN04) located just east of Highway 9 and south of Highway 78 on Ross Street. The system underwent an extensive cast iron replacement program in 1989-90 thus eliminating all cast iron mains. In 1995 the entire system was uprated from 25 psig MAOP to 60 psig MAOP and serves approximately 623 customers. This system extends approximately two (2) miles out of Heflin to the north on Highway 78 East to serve the Southwire Industrial Park and approximately five (5) miles out of Heflin to the south of Interstate 20 on Highway 9 to once serve the old Tyson Foods Plant. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 93 Acton Farm Tap (AN06) - Retired in 2013 The Acton Farm Tap is served from Southern Natural Gas by a farm tap setting located off Chevron Drive in the Anniston area at the northeast corner of the SNG property. We served one customer at 3940 Cloverdale Road that is accessed by a long driveway off Cloverdale Road in Golden Springs. We odorized at this location by using a wick type odorizer. The customer’s meter was located at the farm tap. Due to some area development the customer’s fuel line was damaged and rather than making repairs the land owner decided to discontinue gas service to the home. Alagasco has removed the meter and odorizer. Southern Natural Gas will soon retire the tap. Joe Bailey Farm Tap (AN07) The Joe Bailey Farm Tap is served from Southern Natural Gas by a farm tap setting located just off Highway 78, west of Heflin, on Bonner Lake Road. We serve the one customer at 94 Bonner Lake Road. Alagasco odorizes gas at this tap with the use of a wick type odorizer. The customer’s meter is located at the customer’s residence. The customer’s service is tested for 60 psig MAOP. The Talladega System (TA01 & TA02) The Talladega System is located approximately twenty (20) miles south of Interstate 20 from Oxford along Highway 21. This system serves approximately 4220 customers in the City of Talladega and the surrounding rural areas including the community of Bemiston, Brecon and Shocco Springs. Talladega was once home to a large military ordinance compound in the Brecon area that has since been converted to a small Commercial / Industrial / Recreation Park. Several textile mills downtown and in the Bemiston areas have closed and are now used mostly for warehousing. The Talladega gas system is served from two (2) Southern Natural Taps. Both taps are located just off of Highway 275 Bypass corridor along the west end of the city. Talladega Border Station #1 (TA01) is located on Shocco Springs Road just west of Highway 77. Talladega Border Station #2 (TA02) is located on Highway 21 South in the Bemiston area just north of the Highway 275 Bypass intersection. Station TA01 is a 50 psig MAOP system with regulation being controlled by Southern Natural Gas. This system feeds north out Highway 77 to the Coosa Valley Industrial Park, West to Shocco Springs area, and is the primary feed into the Talladega system from the north. Station TA02 is a 60 psig MAOP system that feeds northeastwardly into the City of Talladega and also the old mill village of Bemiston off Highway 21 South near the Highway 275 Bypass intersection. The Talladega system has no high gas pressure feeds. All cast iron low pressure gas systems have been replaced with new plastic medium pressure mains and services in the past 6 years. The Lincoln System (TA03) The Lincoln #1 System (TA03) is located in Talladega County approximately seventeen (17) miles west of Anniston, just north of Interstate 20. Southern Natural Gas delivers regulated pressure to Alagasco at the Lincoln #1 Tap (TA03) located just west of Highway 77 on Magnolia Street. This July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 94 is a medium pressure steel and plastic 50 psig MAOP system and serves approximately 333 customers. This system was built in 1948 and serves primarily the city limits of the Town of Lincoln. The Riverside System (TA04) The Riverside System, Lincoln #2, is located in St. Clair County approximately twenty-four (24) miles west of Anniston. It is served by one (1) Southern Natural Tap (TA04) located just north of Highway 78 on KOA Road. This is a medium pressure steel and plastic 60 psig MAOP system and serves approximately 1002 customers. This system serves the Town of Riverside, the Bamburg Industrial Park, and south into the Mays Bend and Funderburg Bead areas on Lake Logan Martin. The Riverside East Farm Tap System (Clow, TA05) This is a medium pressure steel 60 psig MAOP system. Southern Natural Gas delivers regulated pressure to Alagasco from the Lincoln #4 Tap (TA05) located approximately 800 feet south of Highway 78 across from the Clow Industrial Park approximately three (3) miles east of Riverside. This main was extended to serve the one industrial customer last known as Pro Sports. The Talladega Raceway System (TA06) This is a medium pressure steel and plastic 60 psig MAOP system. Southern Natural Gas delivers regulated pressure to Alagasco from the Lincoln #3 Tap (TA06) located approximately 1200 feet west of Airport Road and ¾ mile north of Interstate 20 in Eastaboga. This system serves the Talladega Raceway Airport Industrial Complex to the south, the McCartney Asphalt Plant on Eastaboga Road, and then it extends to the north approximately two (2) miles to serves the Ambleside Residential Subdivision off Jackson Trace Road. Alagasco serves approximately 41 customers from this system. The Vincent/Harpersville System (TA07) The Vincent system was purchase from the Town of Vincent and the Town of Harpersville in 1985. The system is served by at tap in Pell City at the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Industrial Park Drive. In 2006 Alagasco constructed a main that would backfeed the Harpersville 25 psig MAOP system with an 8” plastic medium pressure main from the Birmingham system. In extreme cold weather this backfeed helps support the Harpersville medium pressure 25 psig MAOP system thus taking off load from the long run of 3” steel high pressure main along Highway 231 from Pell City. This support regulator station is located west of Harpersville at the intersection of Old Highway 280 and the New Highway 280. Southern Natural Gas delivers us regulated pressure into our 3” steel 200 psig MAOP system starting at the tap on Pleasant Valley Road. Approximately 1 mile downstream the system MAOP is reduced to 175 psig at the Old Vincent Odorizer Regulator Station located in an easement adjacent to the south right of way of Southern Railway just off Hardwick Road. This 3” steel high pressure line runs south for approximately 4 miles to Cropwell and then south another 18 miles to Harpersville Regulator Station near Highway 280 along Highway 231/25. There are several medium pressure regulator stations along this route. Alagasco serves approximately 1407 customers with this system. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 95 The Pell City/Oakridge/Eden System (TA08, TA09, and TA10) The Pell City system is located approximately twenty-six (26) miles west of Anniston along the Interstate 20 corridor. In 1986 Alagasco acquired three (3) border stations served by Southern Natural Gas identified as Pell City, Oakridge and Eden. All three high pressure taps serve the integrated 25 psig MAOP system of Pell City which extends north near the Pell City Industrial Park, south on Highway 231 to a point near Highway 34, and west to the Wolf Creek community near Eden. Alagasco serves approximately 1948 customers from these systems. The Pell City System is served with regulated gas from Southern Natural. In 2011 Alagasco ran a 6” plastic MP reinforcement main along Dr. John Haynes Drive (formally known as Hospital Dr) and crossed Interstate 20 at Bunt Drive to support the one-way feed north of I-20 serving the St. Vincent’s Hospital, V.A. Nursing Facility, Jeff State Community College and the commercial development around the Exit 158 interchange. The delivery pressure from SNG was lowered from 72 psig to 60 psig MAOP which serves a portion of the Pell City system and the inlet to the Oakridge Station. The existing 25 psig MAOP Oakridge System was segmented and the portion running northward and crossing I-20 was uprated to 60 psig MAOP. This system was tied to the newly uprated 60 psig MAOP Pell City System to complete the aforementioned reinforcement and provided a second feed north of the interstate. The Oakridge Station serves the remaining portion of the 25 psig MAOP system running southward from this station. These two (2) stations are located at the intersection of Comer Avenue and Dr. John Haynes Drive. The Eden system is a 2-1/2” steel high pressure 80 psig MAOP system that is fed from the Southern Natural Gas tap located on the north side of Interstate 20 at the intersection of Mineral Springs Road and Roe Drive. This 80 psig MAOP high pressure system serves two regulator stations, the Mineral Springs Road Regulator that serves the 60 psig MAOP system which extends north approximately one (1) mile along Mineral Springs Road and also the Eden Regulator Station south of Interstate 20 near Wolf Creek Road that serves the integrated 25 psig MAOP Pell City system. The Ragland System (TA11) The Ragland system is located approximately 28 miles north of Interstate 20 from Pell City and approximately 16 miles west of the Alexandria community outside of Anniston. We serve approximately 418 residential and small commercial customers. This system is fed from one (1) Southern Natural Tap (TA11) near the Ragland Brick Company downtown Ragland on Highway 144. Southern Natural Gas delivers Alabama Gas Company 50 PSIG to the Ragland Border Station where we regulate to serve the 25 psig MAOP gas system. Because Southern Natural Gas serves two industrial customers off the same lateral line, SNG odorizes their gas upstream of Alagasco’s tap at .5 lbs. /MMCF. Alabama Gas Company also odorizes at the Ragland Border Station at an additional .5 lbs. /MMCF to obtain our standard rate of odorization. Cook Springs Farm Tap The Cooks Springs Farm Tap is served from Southern Natural Gas by a farm tap setting located on the Southern Natural Gas right-of-way at the Cooks Springs Nursing Home on Cooks Springs Road. This site is situated on the south side of Interstate 20 at Exit 152 approximately ten (10) miles east of Leeds. The tap serves a 4” plastic 60 psig MAOP medium pressure main that was extended July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 96 north along Cooks Springs Road approximately four (4) miles to serve the Cleveland Farms S/D located near the intersection of Highway 174. Alagasco serve approximately fifty 50 customers on this system. We odorize at the tap by use of a wick type odorizer. The Leeds/Moody/Branchville/Odenville/Springville/Margaret System The Leeds system is fed from the Southern Natural Tap in downtown Leeds at the Leeds Border Station where Alagasco regulates to serve the Leeds 25 psig MAOP gas system. It is also fed from the Birmingham System on Highway 119 at Lake Purdy by a 50 psig MAOP gas system and is regulated in downtown Leeds to provide an additional feed into the 25 psig MAOP system. In addition, the Leeds 25 psig MAOP gas system is fed from Moody System on Highway 78 at the Parkway Drive Regulator. Alagasco serves approximately 10,500 customers from these systems. Alagasco completed a high pressure dedicated 6” HDPE 125 psig MAOP gas main extension from the Leeds Border Station to serve the Lehigh Portland Cement Company on 3rd Avenue SE. This plastic main was completed in the spring of 2009 and was given a waiver to operate above 60 PSIG. Southern Natural Gas provides odorization to this main at .5lb/MMCF. If Alagasco decides to ever serve additional customers from this line, there will have to be a new odorizer installed to add the additional .5lb/MMCF to obtain our standard rate of odorization. Moody, Branchville and Odenville areas are fed from the Southern Natural Tap on County Road 10 at the Moody Border Station (300 psig MAOP) and regulated downstream to serve the 60 psig MAOP system. Springville and Margaret areas are fed from the Birmingham System (in the Clay community) from Old Springville Road by 2 mains, a 3” (300 psig MAOP) and a 6” (500 psig MAOP). The 500 psig MAOP system is also a secondary feed to the Odenville, Branchville and Moody areas along Mountain View Road and County Road 12 in Odenville. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 97 APPENDIX B THREAT IDENTIFICATION B1.0 Description of Process used to identify threats B2.0 Threats Applicable to Alagasco July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 98 B1.0 Description of Process used to identify threats In developing the Threats applicable to Alagasco, the Operations Services Department reviewed the past five years of leak data captured in the SAP ERMA system. Based on this review and input from operations personnel, it has been determined that all eight of the threats noted in 192, Subpart P are applicable to Alagasco. Supporting data is contained in this DIMP plan. July 2012: based on a review of the 2011 DOT Report and its supporting data by System Integrity Quality Assurance and Compliance personnel, all eight threats continue to be applicable to Alagasco. B2.0 Threats Applicable to Alagasco 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Corrosion Natural Forces Other Outside Force Damage Excavation Material or Weld Incorrect Operations Equipment Other July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 99 APPENDIX C EVALUATION AND RANKING OF RISK C1.0 Current Process Used for Risk Assessment C2.0 Current Risk Assessment July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 100 C1.0 Current Process Used for Risk Assessment Alagasco Threat and Risk Analysis Strategy As of July 18, 2012, Alagasco has purchased the GL Noble Denton Uptime commercial risk model for use in meeting the requirements of the DIM rule. The model has been implemented and is being overseen by (Director, Quality Assurance & Compliance), (Manager, Regulatory Compliance), and (Compliance Engineer). Alagasco participated in a Gas Technology Institute (GTI) research project with other natural gas companies in 2008-2010 which eventually resulted in the commercial development of the Uptime software. This product relies on input from company data systems, external data such as census, USGS, FEMA, and other sources including Alagasco operations personnel (subject matter experts via questionnaires). In addition, where data is not available from Alagasco sources, statistical data derived from the natural gas distribution companies participating in the GTI project will be utilized. The model will be updated as more information related to our system and service area becomes available. The results of the Uptime Risk Model are displayed in the following matrices for each service area. The amount of main in each system is classified into categories based on the associated risk as a product of probability and consequence. The probability of failure is ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. The consequence of failure is ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 101 Annistun LA 5 of Le ngih utal Probability 3 I Very Low Low 5 I El Medium I High 4 I Very High '13 I: Uncategnrized 3 3 2 E: Data source ?nnistun L31. Viwalize July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 102 Birmingham M31113 LA 5 of Le Tatal Probability 3 I 'H-"ary Law Law 5 I Medium I High 4 I Very High El Llnaatagarizad 3 3 'l - 305153 atails Data sauraa Birmingham Matra July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 103 Birmingham SOC LA Sum of Length Tatal Probability 3 I Vary Law Law hr 5 I El Medium I High 4 I Very High El Uncatagarizad 3 3 2 1443554 . E. 1414041 Details Data source Birmingham SUE L5. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 10 4 Birmingham WDCLA of Le ng?i Tntal Probability 3 I Very Law Law 5 I Medium I High 4 I Very High Uncategnrized ?etailg Data source Birmingham WIDE July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 105 ad sden LA Count Total Probability 3 I LowI I Lon-rI El Medium I High 4 I High Llnoategorized 3 3 :3 2 1 Details Data souroe Gadsden LA July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 106 Jasper LA Sum of Length Tatal Probability 3 I Very Law 5 I Law Medium I High 4 I Very High Llncatagarizad 3 3 2 1 ?atails Data aaurca Jasper L63. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 107 LA 3 of Le ngih Total Probability 3 I Very Low Low Ir 5 I Medium I High 4 I Very High Il'l Llnoatagorizad 3 3 2 1 Data oouroa Montgomery July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 108 Dpelik? LA Sum of Le ngih Temlebebmw 3 I Very Lew Lew 5 II Me?um II F?gh 4 I Very High El Llneetegerized Consequence name Date SIZILJTCE Dpelike L-?l?n July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 109 Selma LA 5 of Le ngih Tatal Probability 3 Eanaaquanaa LAJ 1 33331351 Data Selma L?t July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 110 I Vary Law I Law Medium I High I High El Llnaatagarizad ataila St. Clair LA Sum quengih Tatal Probability Canaaquanca ILAJ Data sauraa July 31, 2013 '21 353W St. Elair 3355322 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 111 I Vary Law I Law Medium I High I Very High Llr'laatagarizad Dataila Tuscalnnsa LA Sum of Length Tatal Probability 3 I Vary Law Law 5 I Medium I High 4 I Very High El Llnaatagarizad 3 3 2 1 Details Data source Lit July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 112 The remainder of this section contains information from the initial DIMP plan implementation and risk model from 2011. To meet the requirements of the DIM rule, Alagasco engaged Work Location Subject Matter Experts with knowledge of company operations and Operations Services personnel familiar with the requirements of the rule. Five areas were considered and each area is summarized in the file G:\Op Srv\DIMP, Distribution Integrity Management Plan\ FINAL JULY 2011 RISK MODEL CONSOLIDATED WORK LOCATION SUBMITTALS.XLSX 1. Risk ranking – Alagasco Work Location personnel were forwarded information and a matrix to evaluate the eight threats for each work location. The potential for occurrence and the associated consequences were ranked on a 1 to 5 scale, then scored for each work location and the company as a whole. The work locations did not distinguish the threats on mains versus services in their evaluation. Operations Services personnel, including reviewed the work location responses and compiled a companywide summary. The summary of these results showed the top five predicted threats to be: a. Excavation Damage b. Corrosion c. Natural Forces d. Other Outside Force Damage e. Equipment 2. Additional Threats by Work Location – each Work Location was asked to consider submitting a list of additional pending threats to its system. The list included major building or highway projects among the potential threats. 3. Additional Risk-related questions – each Work Location was asked to respond to questions related to its understanding of particular threats to its system. 4. Data Compilation and analysis – historical leaks and damages were compiled and analyzed by Operations Services personnel for inclusion in the Know Your System section of the plan and to supplement the risk ranking done by the Work Locations. 5. Incident Reporting Summary – a summary of the past 10 years of Alagasco incident reporting data for consideration in the overall risk and threat evaluation. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 113 C2.0 Current Risk Assessment Summary of Risk and Threat Review by Work Location and Operations Services personnel as of 7-13-12 (Page 1 of 2) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 114 Summary of Risk and Threat Review by Work Location and Operations Services personnel as of 7-13-12 (Page 2 of 2) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 115 Additional Questions to Work Locations – 7/11 (Page 1 of 2) BGH Question # Question ANN -11 GAD - 14-11 7-8-11 1 Extra precautions when directional boring Avoid cross bores. Contractor has to spot all sewer laterals prior to boring. Cameras in Sewers and Sewer Laterals, line locations are called into 811 for on the surface locating, physically exposing all utilities to cross, sweeping of area with pipehorn locating equipment, reviewing of MAGI maps of existing gas facilities. The Gadsden Response would be very similar to Anniston 2 Non-pipe threats Highway projects & large construction projects I can't think of any threats The Gadsden Response would be very similar to Anniston 3 Greatest threat Excavation Excavation/Third Party damages. The Gadsden Response would be very similar to Anniston 4 Additional measures to address actual or potential risks Critical area checkpoints are more frequent that required by 192. Annual critical area mains survey by contractor not required by 192 Leak surveys prior to paving projects being performed. The Gadsden Response would be very similar to Anniston 5 Any vehicular or vandalism damage past 5 years? Valley Road,main feed from Parish to Oakman -bush hog hit main near bridge abutment approx. 2008. N known vandalism We have had a remote pressure recording gauge stolen by suspected copper thieves and also a couple regulator stations run over by vehicles I am not aware of any damage to our facilities or theft. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 116 Additional Questions to Work Locations – 7/11 (Page 2 of 2) Question # Question SEL Our contractors use Alabama One Call or contact individual utilities not associated with Alabama One Call to locate their facilities. Our contractor are required to spot existing facilities if they cross other underground facilities. 1. Engineering - Utilities are usually excavated to determine the exact location and depth. 2. Construction – Obtain an up to date MissAll, and pot hole all utilities (including sewer laterals that can be located) for depth and location. 1 Extra precautions when directional boring Pot holes to visually verify depth of all laterals when possible and/or scoping of sewer laterals when they can be located. Both contractors we work with (Speegle & NPL) contact “one call” and any utility not associated with “one call” for initial locates on the project. NPL crews locate and spot each utility (including sewer laterals) “ahead” of drill (usually a day or two in advance). Spot holes are left open during drill operation so drill head can be viewed “passing” by spotted utilities to insure utility was not contacted and clearance was achieved. 2 Non-pipe threats None at this time. Work involved with the widening of AL Highway 22 is now completed No I am not aware of any non-pipe, historical threats to the Opelika Distribution System. No Corrosion and third-party excavation damages In order of concern(highest to lowest) excavation, natural forces, corrosion, weld or joint failure, material, equipment failure, other outside force damage, incorrect operation, other. 1. Engineering – excavation 2. Construction – corrosion (mains and services needing to be replaced due to age and condition, e.g. cast iron, bare steel) We have a really good relationship will local city, county, and state representatives which gives us the opportunity to know of projects well in advance. This project lead time ensures that we avoid any possible conflicts. We also have a good relationship with CLS, plumbers, engineers, and developers which also helps us avoid conflicts because they give us a heads-up if they see a potential problem. We continue to survey Auburn and Opelika Critical Area Bi-Monthly although there is not cast iron in these Critical Areas. There are several regulators inspected more stringent than 192 requires. (e.g. inspected annually rather the every three years or internally inspected rather than checking response). 1. Engineering - Distribution checks all odorizers weekly to ensure the equipment is operating properly. 2. Construction - no 3 Greatest threat 4 Additional measures to address actual or potential risks July 31, 2013 Excavation would be the greatest threat due to the unpredictable nature. You do not have history to predict and problem areas as with corrosion Bi-monthly surveys by company personnel are done in critical areas in excess of Part 192. Transmission lines/ROW’s are patrolled by contract survey crews, company personnel, and contract cutting crews. Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 117 5 Any vehicular or vandalism damage past 5 years? None we are aware of Not to our knowledge. I do not recall any vehicle or vandalism to our facilities in the last 5 years. Anniston Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 118 1. Engineering – no 2. Construction - no East Lauderdale Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 119 Gadsden Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 120 Montgomery Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 121 Opelika Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 122 Selma Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 123 Tuscaloosa Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 124 Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk WOC - Birmingham Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 125 Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk SOC - Birmingham Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 126 Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk METRO - Birmingham Work Location / Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 127 Threat Identification, Risk, and the Mitigation of Risk July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 128 Measures designed to reduce the risks associated with each threat are documented in the risk model by Work Location. These measures will be evaluated and monitored annually when the required risk model update is performed. Top Five Threats – As derived from July 2011 Composite Summary of Risk Model Results – SMEs 1 2 3 4 Primary Threat Category Threat Subcategory, as Measure to Reduce appropriate Risk Excavation Third party damage Damage Prevention Track damages by root education cause beginning in 2012 Bare steel/cast iron Annual monitoring of replacement program pipe replaced Develop Work Review plans on an Location-specific annual basis in the inclement weather Emergency Response plans team planning Provide Emergency Document training and Responder annual results of meeting into training (annual) Emergency Response Corrosion Natural Forces Other Outside Force External Corrosion Outside force/weather Fire/Explosion Damage Performance Measure plan 5 Equipment July 31, 2013 Malfunction of system Review SCADA and Document review and equipment inspection results for make changes to potential failures equipment as needed Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 129 APPENDIX D IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO ADDRESS RISKS D1.0 Key Elements of the Leak Management Program D2.0 Key Performance Metrics of the Leak Management Program D3.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Corrosion D4.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Natural Forces D5.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Excavation Damage D6.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Other Outside Force D7.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Material, Weld or Joint Failure D8.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Equipment Failure D9.0Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Incorrect Operation D10.0Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with other causes July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 130 D1.0 Key Elements of the Leak Management Program Alagasco’s leak management program is an important risk management technique used to maintain the integrity of the transmission and distribution system. The leak survey is performed by operator qualified company and contract personnel using approved leak detection instruments and proper tools. The guidelines for the leak management program are located in the Operation Procedure Manual in section MC 7.0. These guidelines adhere to the rules set forth by PHMSA 192 Subpart M Maintenance.      MC7.1 Detection Equipment MC7.2 Classification and Response o MC7.2.1 - Gas Leak Repair Priorities  MC7.2,2 Notification  MC7.2.3 Dispatching  MC7.2.4 Field Investigation  MC7.2.5 Training MC7.3 Surveys  MC7.3.1 Scheduling and Coordinating  MC7.3.2 Mains  MC7.3.3 Services  MC7.3.4 Regulator Vaults  MC7.3.5 Critical Areas MC7.3.6 Public Assembly MC7.3.7 Transmission Lines and Rights-of-Way (ROW) Leaks are evaluated using industry standards such as those set forth by GPTC. If a hazardous leak is detected, company personnel are dispatched immediately to repair the leak. Non hazardous leaks are evaluated and scheduled for repair within a certain time frame or rescheduled for re-evaluation during the next survey. Records are maintained on all leaks to provide sufficient data to allow for reports to be generated for regulatory requirements. Also, leak report records are utilized to evaluate the distribution system and allow the company to make educated decisions on our main replacement program. By analyzing this information, we are able to appropriate the budgeted system improvement dollars correctly to maintain our system and to keep people and property safe. Key requirements are summarized below. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 131 Key Requirements of the Leak Management Program Program Element Qualification/Training requirements for personnel conducting leak survey Auditing and Quality Assurance of Leak Survey Equipment Criteria for leak severity classification Established Frequency of Leak Survey in Business Districts, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Established Frequency of Leak Survey for Cathodically Unprotected Lines subject to §192.465(e) on which electrical surveys for corrosion are impractical, at least once every 3 calendar years at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Established Frequency of Leak Survey of Remaining Lines at least once every 5 calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63 months. Hazardous Leaks Requiring Immediate Repair – Ongoing action required Non-hazardous Leaks Requiring Scheduled Repair – Time limit is established to Eliminate Leak Non-Hazardous Leak NOT requiring scheduled repair– Monitoring Requirements established Reference to Requirement Established in the Standard or Procedure Operations Procedure Manual MC10.7.1 Electronics Tech 3 Operations Procedure Manual MC7.2.1. Operations Procedure Manual MC7.3.5 Operations Procedure Manual MC7.3.2 Records and Data Management procedures defined Operations Procedure Manual MC7.3.2 Operations Procedure Manual MC7.2.1. Operations Procedure Manual MC7.2.1. Operations Procedure Manual MC7.2.1. Operations Procedure Manual MC7.2.1. Performance Metrics established DIMP Plan July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 132 D2.0 Leak Management Program Key Performance Metrics 1. % of Annual Leak Surveys completed within OPM timeframe a. 2008 = 97% b. 2009 = 97% c. 2010 = 100% d. 2011 = 96% e. 2012 = 98% 2. Number of Grade 1, 2 and 3 Contract Survey reported leaks per miles of mains and services surveyed. On an annual basis, current year totals will be compared to the five year average for company total reported leaks. Data will be evaluated with respect to the ongoing implementation of the “walking only” surveys in each Work Location (walk mains and services in the former mobile mains boundaries) since this implementation has caused additional quantities to be surveyed and thus, the potential for more leaks to be reported. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 133 Work Location GR 1 Rate Anniston Above Ground GR 2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate 2007 0.08 0.045 0.148 0.004 0 1.758 2008 0.143 0.171 0.27 0.001 0.14 0.956 2009 0.092 0.133 0.169 0.001 0.054 1.063 2010 0.052 0.121 0.114 0.011 0.156 0.765 2011 0.034 0.071 0.109 0 0.048 0.338 2012 0.001 0.015 0.087 0.009 0.006 0.078 Work Location Birmingham Below Ground GR 1 GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Rate Above Ground GR 1 GR 2 GR 3 Rate Rate Rate 2007 0.11 0.677 0.001 0.003 0.505 0 2008 0.127 0.844 0 0.007 0.935 0 2009 0.148 0.676 0.01 0.008 1.085 0 2010 0.09 0.666 0.003 0.018 1.295 0.012 2011 0.021 0.311 0.001 0.005 0.512 0.005 2012 0.037 0.163 0.145 0.006 0.06 0.288 Work Location Gadsden/East Lauderdale Below Ground GR 1 GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Rate Above Ground GR 1 GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Rate 2007 0.02 0.018 0.032 0 0 0.266 2008 0.154 0.098 0.232 0.004 0.004 2.956 2009 0.124 0.102 0.26 0.006 0.119 2.288 2010 0.087 0.048 0.103 0.006 0.034 2.09 2011 0.053 0.053 0.179 0 0.044 1.292 2012 0.045 0.061 0.227 0.003 0.011 0.681 Work Location Montgomery Below Ground GR 1 GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Rate Above Ground GR 1 GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Rate 2007 0 0.016 0.137 0.001 0.002 0.55 2008 0.045 0.123 0.224 0.006 0.441 0.776 2009 0.025 0.113 0.196 0.004 0.44 0.836 2010 0.074 0.149 0.332 0.01 0.361 1.813 2011 0.041 0.158 0.282 0.004 0.136 0.831 2012 0.038 0.171 0.455 0.006 0.141 1.47 Work Location July 31, 2013 Below Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Below Ground Above Ground Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 134 GR 1 Rate Selma GR2 Rate GR 3 Rate GR 1 Rate GR2 Rate GR 3 Rate 2007 0 0.092 0 0 0.096 0 2008 0.006 0.049 0.063 0 0 0.04 2009 0 0.056 0.002 0 0.088 0.024 2010 0.006 0.049 0.043 0.006 0.024 0.567 2011 0.026 0.101 0.105 0.008 0.018 0.499 2012 0.002 0.093 0.091 0.001 0.256 1.033 Work Location Below Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate Opelika Above Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate 2007 0 0.192 0 0 0.107 0 2008 0.006 0.158 0.212 0 0.164 0.182 2009 0.011 0.117 0.138 0 0 0.226 2010 0.02 0.078 0.144 0.007 0.054 2011 0.032 0.107 0.368 0 0.018 1.009 2012 0.072 0.223 0.574 0.007 0.089 1.027 Work Location Below Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate Tuscaloosa 0.029 Above Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate 2007 0 0.103 0 0.002 0.071 0 2008 0.003 0.037 0 0.001 0.019 0 2009 0.005 0.073 0.003 0 0.113 0 2010 0.055 0.181 0.001 0.001 1.432 0.003 2011 0.021 0.241 0 0.002 0.826 0.002 2012 0.014 0.014 0.166 0.028 0.125 0.402 All Work Locations Yearly totals GR 1 Rate Below Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate Above Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate Totals 2007 0.057 0.358 0.032 0.002 0.261 0.185 Totals 2008 0.077 0.418 0.1 0.005 0.502 0.398 Totals 2009 Totals 2010 Totals 2011 Totals 2012 0.083 0.075 0.027 0.208 0.326 0.434 0.227 0.74 0.082 0.069 0.091 1.75 0.004 0.014 0.004 0.062 0.529 0.893 0.350 0.689 0.436 0.453 0.318 4.98 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 135 Work Location Average GR 1 Rate Below Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate GR 1 Rate Above Ground GR2 GR 3 Rate Rate 2007 0.032 0.163 0.045 0.001 0.112 0.368 2008 0.069 0.211 0.143 0.003 0.243 0.701 2009 0.058 0.181 0.111 0.003 0.271 0.634 2010 0.079 0.313 0.127 0.013 0.713 0.976 2011 0.033 0.149 0.149 0.003 0.229 0.568 2012 0.03 0.106 0.25 0.009 0.098 0.711 Below Ground Grade 1 Leaks 0.18 0.16 Anniston 0.14 Birmingham 0.12 Gadsden/East Lauderdale 0.1 Montgomery 0.08 Selma 0.06 Opelika 0.04 Tuscalooosa 0.02 Division Average 0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 136 Below Ground Grade 2 Leaks 0.9 0.8 Anniston 0.7 Birmingham 0.6 Gadsden/East Lauderdale 0.5 Montgomery 0.4 Selma 0.3 Opelika 0.2 Tuscalooosa Division Average 0.1 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Below Ground Grade 3 Leaks 0.7 0.6 Anniston 0.5 Birmingham Gadsden/East Lauderdale 0.4 Montgomery 0.3 Selma 0.2 Opelika Tuscalooosa 0.1 Division Average 0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 137 Above Ground Grade 1 Leaks 0.02 0.018 0.016 Anniston 0.014 Birmingham 0.012 Gadsden/East Lauderdale Montgomery 0.01 Selma 0.008 Opelika 0.006 Tuscalooosa 0.004 Division Average 0.002 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Above Ground Grade 2 Leaks 1.6 1.4 Anniston 1.2 Birmingham 1 Gadsden/East Lauderdale Montgomery 0.8 Selma 0.6 Opelika 0.4 Tuscalooosa 0.2 Division Average 0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 138 Above Ground Grade 3 Leaks 3.5 3 Anniston 2.5 Birmingham Gadsden/East Lauderdale 2 Montgomery 1.5 Selma Opelika 1 Tuscalooosa Division Average 0.5 0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 139 D3.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Corrosion  Add cathodic protection layer in MAGI showing location of rectifiers and test points by end of 2013 (Completed Dec, 2013)  Add “Protected” steel layer in MAGI by end of 2013 (In Progress) D4.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Natural Forces  Complete training using mock outage situations throughout company. (July 2013) Mock outage practice sessions are underway in various work locations. (Completed 2013) D5.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Excavation Damage     Continue to work with Alabama Damage Prevention Alliance to change one-call legislation in 2014. (July 2013) l have worked with ADPA to develop draft legislation for introduction in the 2014 Alabama legislative session. (Completed, Law passed 3/20/14) Evaluate root causes of damages and consider participating in CGA’s Damage Information Reporting Tool DIRT) program by beginning of 2012. July 2013: Damage data is being collected in the RMS system. Data collected is consistent with the data in the CGA DIRT program, Alagasco is still evaluating whether to upload its data into DIRT. Additional analysis of the data is necessary prior to making that decision. (In Progress) Monitor contract locator performance on a monthly basis. July 2013: Alagasco continues to monitor high profile locate tickets as part of its QA program, under the direction of (In Progress) Enact a program for Crossbore Awareness, which will include using camera inspection of pre and post contractor bores. (In Progress) D6.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Other Outside Force  Evaluate leaks due to this cause on a quarterly basis for accuracy. (July 2013) Evaluation to begin in Spring 2014. (In Progress) D7.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Material, Weld or Joint Failure  Material defects are reviewed in the Quality Assurance & Compliance department. (In Progress) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 140    Capture leaks repaired by Material in annual DOT report preparation and analyze cause for accuracy on a quarterly basis. (will implement by July 2014) Continue to participate in AGA’s Plastic Pipe Database Collection voluntary initiative. (July 2013) participation ongoing. Conduct quarterly reviews of Mechanical Fitting Failure Forms submitted to PHMSA. (July 2013) data is reviewed prior to submittal by the Quality Assurance & Compliance department. D8.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Equipment Failure  Review and analyze Equipment failures on at least a quarterly basis to determine root cause. July 2013: review to be implemented by Spring, 2014. D9.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Incorrect Operations    Review options to expand SCADA to monitor changes for this risk. July 2013: need to develop this action with respect to CRM requirements with , Director of System Operations – fall 2012. In 2013, implemented new process to report and monitor occurrences of over-pressure. (Completed September, 2013) Continue mechanical tee inspection program. Alagasco is currently performing camera inspections on mechanical tees and replacing tees that are found to be installed incorrectly. In Progress) D10.0 Additional or Accelerated Actions to reduce the risks associated with Other causes   Review all Other leaks on a quarterly basis for accuracy of reporting. July 2013: review to evaluate for implementation by Spring, 2014. Incorporate controls into the RMS phase 2 project. July 2013: Clarified use of “Other” to include leaks repaired by main or service replacement. (Completed Feb, 2014) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 141 APPENDIX E MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE, MONITORING RESULTS, AND EVALUATION EFFECTIVENESS E1.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Hazardous Leaks Eliminated or Repaired E2.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Excavation Damages E3.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Excavation Tickets E4.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Leaks Eliminated or Repaired, by Cause E5.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Leaks Eliminated or Repaired, by Material E6.0 Baseline and Ongoing Documentation of Additional Performance Measures, if required July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 142 E1.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Hazardous Leaks Eliminated or RepairedBaseline determination:. 1. Company five year average hazardous leaks eliminated or repaired by cause for 2007-11 is the baseline for 2012. In subsequent years, the baseline will be the average leaks eliminated or repaired for the 5 years preceding the current year’s data. 2. Determine company five year average of total hazardous leaks repaired 3. Determine standard deviation for leaks repaired on mains and services 4. If value exceeds the five year average plus two times the standard deviation (max accepted limit), then additional review of the threat will be required. Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired, per §192.703(c), categorized by cause: Max Accepted Limit 2012 Within limit (Y/N) Leak Cause 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5-yr Average Corrosion 349 451 584 488 445 463 615 557 Y Natural Forces 71 123 115 145 253 141 263 155 Y 2148 1896 1723 1614 1817 1840 2201 1867 Y 139 192 108 79 110 126 202 149 Y 100 123 203 327 421 235 480 123 Y Equipment Failure 81 226 580 704 547 428 897 520 Y Incorrect Operations 15 17 11 7 4 11 21 22 N 1045 3948 488 3516 149 3473 163 3527 320 3917 433 3676 1093 4097 222 3615 Y Y Excavation Damage Other Outside Force Material, Weld, or Joint Failure Other TOTAL Number of EFVs Installed and Estimated Number in System as of end of 2011 [See Part E of PHMSA Form F 7100.1-1 incorporated by reference] July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 143 Number of EFV’s Installed 2012 on Single Family Residential Services: 10,491 Estimated Number of EFV’s in system at end of 2012: 76,679 Data will be compiled on an annual basis as required for the DOT report. E2.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Excavation Damages Number of Excavation Damages Year 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Five year average Number of Excavation Damages 2181 2270 2585 2684 2890 2522 Performance measures for Excavation Damages will be developed using five averages and standard deviation analysis similar to the process outlined for Number of Leaks Eliminated or Repaired by Cause, in section E4.0 of this DIM Plan. Damages per 1000 locates (i.e. excavation tickets) will be monitored and measured in a similar manner to the process noted in section E4.0 of this DIMP Plan. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 144 Anniston Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Anniston Damage Density 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages per 1000 July 31, 2013 Damages Tickets Tickets Year 2008 238 13066 18.2 2009 176 10404 16.9 2010 202 13438 15.0 2011 190 11916 15.9 2012 219 13554 16.2 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 145 Birmingham Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Birmingham Damage Density 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per July 31, 2013 Year Damages Tickets 1000 Tickets 2008 1737 70,444 24.7 2009 1647 55,339 29.8 2010 1502 58,009 25.9 2011 1414 60,602 23.3 2012 1370 67,563 20.3 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 146 Gadsden Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Gadsden Damage Density July 31, 2013 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per Year Damages Tickets 2008 120 6,100 19.7 2009 163 6,253 26.1 2010 116 6,398 18.1 2011 72 5,538 13.0 2012 79 6,270 12.6 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1000 Tickets 147 Montgomery Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Montgomery Damage Density July 31, 2013 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per Year Damages Tickets 2008 213 25,233 8.4 2009 177 22,853 7.7 2010 219 27,610 7.9 2011 183 23,263 7.9 2012 147 22,442 6.6 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1000 Tickets 148 Opelika Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Opelika Damage Density 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per Year Damages Tickets 2008 213 16,695 12.8 2009 171 14,195 12.0 2010 162 20,831 7.8 2011 103 19,424 5.3 2012 161 20,517 7.8 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1000 Tickets 149 Selma Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Selma Damage Density 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per Year Damages Tickets 2008 105 3,168 33.1 2009 105 2,968 35.4 2010 124 3,168 39.1 2011 78 3,220 24.2 2012 58 4,207 13.8 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1000 Tickets 150 Tuscaloosa Damage Density Tuscaloosa Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per Year Damages Tickets 2008 264 16,435 16.1 2009 245 13,446 18.2 2010 260 13,807 18.8 2011 184 15,620 11.8 2012 147 14,459 10.2 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1000 Tickets 151 Alagasco Damage Density Damages Per Thousand Locates Alagasco Damage Density 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2008 July 31, 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 Damages Per Year Damages Tickets 2008 2890 151141 19.1 2009 2684 125458 21.4 2010 2585 143261 18.0 2011 2224 139583 15.9 2012 2181 151341 14.4 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 1000 Tickets 152 E3.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Excavation Tickets Number of Excavation Tickets 2008-2012 Year Number of Excavation Tickets 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Five Year Average 151,341 140,441 143,261 126,882 151,141 142,613 Excavation tickets will be monitored against the five year average on an annual basis. Damages per 1000 locates will be measured as noted in section E2.0 above. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 153 E4.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Leaks Eliminated or Repaired, by Cause Number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by cause Cause of Leak Number of leaks eliminated or repaired– 2012 Corrosion Natural Forces 1787 Excavation 1966 Other Outside Force 195 Material, Weld or Joint Failure 393 Equipment Failure 2665 Incorrect Operation 51 Other 631 TOTAL 8031 343 Leaks eliminated or repaired by cause are reported annually. 1. Company five year average leaks eliminated or repaired by cause for 2007-11 is the baseline for 2012. In subsequent years, the baseline will be the average leaks eliminated or repaired for the 5 years preceding the current year’s data. 2. Determine company five year average of total leaks repaired on mains per total miles of mains by year 3. Determine company five year average of total leaks repaired on services per total miles of services (or total services) by year 4. Determine standard deviation for leaks repaired on mains and services 5. If value exceeds the five year average plus two times the standard deviation, then additional review of the threat will be required. This process will be conducted and documented following the annual DOT report preparation cycle. The data is summarized below. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 154 Corrosion Leaks per Mile of Main 0.250 Leaks per Mile 0.200 0.150 2x's Standard Deviation Corrosion Leaks 0.100 5-year Average 0.050 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Data plotted for miles of non-plastic pipe only. Natural Force Leaks per Mile of Main 0.025 Leaks per Mile 0.020 0.015 2x's Standard Deviation 5-year Average 0.010 Natural Force Leaks 0.005 0.000 2007 July 31, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 155 Excavation Leaks per Mile of Main 0.045 0.040 Leaks per Mile 0.035 0.030 0.025 high 0.020 average rate 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Other Outside Force Leaks per Mile of Main 0.004 0.003 Leaks per Mile 0.003 0.002 2x's Standard Deviation average 0.002 rate 0.001 0.001 0.000 2007 July 31, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 156 Other Cause Leaks per Mile of Main 0.400 0.350 0.300 Leaks per Mile 0.250 2x's Standard Deviation 0.200 Other Cause 0.150 5-year Average 0.100 0.050 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.050 Incorrect Operations Leaks per Mile of Main 0.003 Leaks per Mile 0.002 0.002 2x's Standard Deviation average 0.001 rate 0.001 0.000 2007 July 31, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 157 Equipment Malfunction Leaks per Mile of Main 0.0700 0.0600 Leaks per Mile 0.0500 0.0400 2x's Standard Deviation average 0.0300 rate 0.0200 0.0100 0.0000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Material Leaks per Mile of Main 0.0700 0.0600 Leaks per Mile 0.0500 0.0400 2x's Standard Deviation Materials 0.0300 5-year Average 0.0200 0.0100 0.0000 2007 July 31, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 158 Corrosion Leaks per Service Mile 0.220 Leaks per Mile 0.200 0.180 2x's Standard Deviation 0.160 Corrosion leaks 5-year Average 0.140 0.120 0.100 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Natural Force Leaks per Service Mile 0.035 0.030 Leaks per Mile 0.025 0.020 2x's Standard Deviation 0.015 Natural Force Leaks 5-year Average 0.010 0.005 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.005 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 159 Excavation Leaks per Service Mile 0.190 0.170 Leaks per Mile 0.150 0.130 2x's Standard Deviation Excavation Leaks 0.110 5-year Average 0.090 0.070 0.050 2007 July 31, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 160 Other Outside Force Leaks per Service Mile 0.025 Leaks per Mile 0.020 0.015 2x's Standard Deviation Other Outside Force 0.010 5-year Average 0.005 0.000 2007 0.008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Incorrect Operations Leaks per Service Mile 0.007 0.006 Leaks per Mile 0.005 0.004 2x's Standard Deviation 0.003 Incorrect Operations 0.002 5-year Average 0.001 0.000 -0.001 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.002 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 161 Other Cause Leaks per Service Mile 0.300 0.250 Leaks per Mile 0.200 0.150 2x's Standard Deviation 0.100 Other Cause 5-year Average 0.050 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.050 -0.100 July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 162 Equipment Malfunction Leaks per Service Mile 0.300 0.250 Leaks per Mile 0.200 2x's Standard Deviation 0.150 Equipment Malfunction 0.100 5-year Average 0.050 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -0.050 Material Leaks per Service Mile 0.1200 Leaks per Mile 0.1000 0.0800 2x's Standard Deviation 0.0600 Material 5-year Average 0.0400 0.0200 0.0000 2006 July 31, 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 163 Material Leaks per Service Mile 0.1200 0.1000 Leaks per Mile 0.0800 2x's Standard Deviation 0.0600 Material 5-year Average 0.0400 0.0200 0.0000 2007 July 31, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 164 E5.0 Baseline and Ongoing Performance of Number of Hazardous Leaks Eliminated or Repaired, by Material The data for 2011 will be the baseline for this category. Annual data will be compared against the prior year for trends. Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired, per §192.703(c), categorized by material Number of Grade 1 leaks eliminated or repaired– 2011 Number of Grade 1 leaks eliminated or repaired– 2012 Comments 1275 1270 stable 0 0 stable Copper 43 0 declining Cast Iron / Wrought Iron 251 250 stable Plastic – PE 1853 1936 rising Other 141 159 rising TOTAL 3563 3615 rising Material Steel Ductile Iron E6.0 Baseline and Ongoing Documentation of Additional Performance Measures, if required None noted at this time. Alagasco will conduct an annual review to determine if additional performance measures are needed. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 165 APPENDIX F PERIODIC EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT System Integrity will perform periodic reviews of the written plan (at least annually) along with the effectiveness of the performance measures noted in the plan. The review will include verifying content of the plan with operations management personnel to ensure clarity and understanding of the requirements. Documentation of these reviews and meetings is included in the plan. Performance measures that exceed the criteria outlined in this plan will also be documented and analyzed by System Integrity personnel. Required frequency Required Annually Required Annually As needed* Program Re-evaluation Element to Analyze/Update Date Completed Baseline and on-going performance measures 7/31/13 Knowledge of System Characteristics, Environmental Factors and Threats 7/31/13 Threat Identification Process As needed* Threat Identification As needed* Risk Evaluation and Ranking Process 7/31/13 As needed* Evaluation of Risks 7/31/13 As needed* Evaluation and Ranking Validation 7/31/13 As needed* Risk Evaluation and Ranking Process Improvement Action Plans 7/31/13 Required Annually Leak Management Program Key Performance Metrics 7/31/13 As needed* Update Additional/Accelerated Actions and other Action Plans 7/31/13 Required Annually Update DIMP plan and notify appropriate personnel, including APSC and Alagasco operations personnel 7/31/13 * as needed to address the risk category whose performance measure was exceed Documented Plan Reviews and Meetings are listed below. July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 166 TITLE ATTENDEES DATE 3/17/2010 DIM Plan Development 9/30/2010 DIM Plan Development 12/14/2010 GTI DIM Risk Model Development webinar 2/3/2011 ERMA & DIM data review 4/20/2011 Collection and Validation of Field Data for DIMP 5/10/2011 DIMP Implementation Webinar 6/8/2011 DIMP Implementation Webinar 6/17/2011 ESRI DIM Risk Model Development Options 7/5/2011 Review Risk Model & Plan Status (Dir. Operations (Coord Mapping & Records), & Standards), (Mgr. QA (Mgr. System Planning), (Mgr. Engineering & Compliance), (Distribution Engineer), (Distribution Engineer) 7/8/2011 Review Birmingham Risk Models for DIMP 7/14/2011 DIMP Risk Model Final Deliverables (GTI Webinar) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 167 7/25/11 Review DIM Plan to be enacted on 8/2/2011 (Dir. Operations Services), (Coord Mapping & Records), (Distribution Engineer), VP), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), 1/31/2012 DIM Plan Review (VP), (Mgr. System Planning) (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Compliance), (Dir. QA & (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance) 2/6/2012 DIM Plan Review (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Compliance), (Dir. QA & (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance) 3/21- Everything DIM Conference 24/2012 (SGA) 4/2/2012 Risk Model Update (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Dir. Pipeline Risk Mgmt), Mgr GIS Data Integrity Appl Support), (VP System Integrity), Compliance Engineer), (Materials & Tech Engineer), (Dir System Operations) 6/29/2012 Review DIM Plan (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer 7/20/2012 Review DIM Plan Revision (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer) 7/27/2012 Review Final Draft of DIM Plan (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 168 7/31/2012 Review DIM Plan Revisions (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), Operations), Dir. System (VP System Integrity), (Materials & Tech Engineer), (Dir Damage Prevention) 11/28/2012 DIMP Discussion Group (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer) 7/11/13 DIMP Annual Plan Review (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Op Student), 7/25/13 DIM Plan Update (Engineering Co(Engineering Intern) (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Op Student), 7/29/13 Uptime Results (Engineering Co(Engineering Intern) (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), (Mgr. GIS Data Integrity Appl Support) 7/31/13 DIM Plan Review (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer) 1/7/14 Review Ris k Model Status (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), Mgmt.), (Dir. Pipeline Risk (Dir. System Operations), (VP System Integrity), Projects), Risk), July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a (Mgr. PRM (Mgr. Business Pipeline Mgr. Pipeline Replacement) 169 1/13/14 Anniston & Gadsden DIM Plan & Risk Model Review (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), (Mgr. System Integrity ANN/GAD), (Mgr. System Integrity ANN/GAD) 1/14/14 Tuscaloosa & Selma DIM Plan & (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), Risk Model Review (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), (Coord PRM), (Distribution Mechanic), Mechanic), (Distribution (Distribution Mechanic), (SI Supervisor), (SI Manager), (SI Supervisor) 1/15/2014 Birmingham DIM Plan & Risk (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), Model Review (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), (Dir. QA & Compliance), (Mgr. System Integrity WOC/SOC), (Mgr. Customer Service SOC/WOC/JASP), (Mgr. System Integrity Metro), 2/6/14 Opelika & Phenix City DIM Plan (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), & Risk Model Review (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Integrity MO/OP), PXC), (Mgr. System (Supt System Integrity (Supt System Integity OP), (Supv. Customer Service OP) 2/7/14 Montgomery DIM Plan & Risk Model Review (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Integrity MO/OP), (Mgr. System (Mgr GIS South), (Supv. System Integrity MO), (Supt System Integrity MO), (Supv. System Integrity MO) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 170 2/14/14 DIM Plan Review (Mgr. Regulatory Compliance), (Compliance Engineer), (Compliance Engineer), Compliance), 3/18- Everything DIM Conference 19/2014 (SGA) July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a Dir. QA & (Engineering Intern) 171 APPENDIX G CROSS REFERENCE OF 49 CFR PART 192, SUBPART P REQUIREMENTS TO THE IM PLAN July 31, 2013 Alagasco DIM Plan Version 1.2.a 172 The table below provides a cross reference between 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart P (Gas Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management) and this Gas Distribution Integrity Management Plan. 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart P §192.1005 No later than August 2, 2011 a gas distribution operator must develop and implement an integrity management program that includes a written integrity management plan as specified in § 192.1007. §192.1007 A written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing and implementing the following elements: §192.1007 (a) Knowledge. An operator must demonstrate an understanding of its gas distribution system developed from reasonably available information. §192.1007 (a) (1) Identify the characteristics of the pipeline’s design and operations and the environmental factors that are necessary to assess the applicable threats and risks to its gas distribution pipeline. §192.1007 (a) (2) Consider the information gained from past design, operations, and maintenance. §192.1007 (a) (3) Identify additional information needed and provide a plan for gaining that information over time through normal activities conducted on the pipeline (for example, design, construction, operations or maintenance activities). §192.1007 (a) (4) Develop and implement a process by which the IM program will be reviewed periodically and refined and improved as needed. §192.1007 (a) (5) Provide for the capture and retention of data on any new pipeline installed. The data must include, at a minimum, the location where the new pipeline is installed and the material of which it is constructed. §192.1007 (b) Identify threats. The operator must consider the following categories of threats to each gas distribution pipeline: corrosion, natural forces, excavation damage, other outside force damage, material, weld or joint failure, equipment failure, incorrect operation, and other concerns that could threaten the integrity of the pipeline. §192.1007 (b) An operator must consider reasonably available information to identify existing and potential threats. Sources of data may include, but are not limited to, incident and leak history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance history, and excavation damage experience. §192.1007 (c) Evaluate and rank risk. An operator must evaluate the risks associated with its distribution pipeline. In this evaluation, the operator must determine the relative importance of each threat and estimate and rank the risks posed to its pipeline. This evaluation must consider each applicable current and potential threat, the likelihood of failure associated with each threat, and the potential consequences of such a failure. §192.1007 (c) …. An operator may subdivide its pipeline into regions with similar characteristics (e.g., contiguous areas within a distribution pipeline consisting of mains, services and other appurtenances; areas with common materials or environmental factors), and for which similar actions likely would be effective in reducing risk. 173 IM Plan Reference 3.0 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.4 10.1, 10.2 5.5 6.0 5.1, 6.0, 7.1, 7.2 NonMandatory 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart P IM Plan Reference §192.1007 (d) Identify and implement measures to address risks. Determine and implement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline. These measures must include an effective leak management program (unless all leaks are repaired when found). 8.1, 8.2 §192.1007 (e) (1) Measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate effectiveness. Develop and monitor performance measures from an established baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its IM program. …... These performance measures must include the following: (i) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired, per § 192.703(c), categorized by cause; (ii) Number of excavation damages; (iii) Number of excavation tickets (receipt of information by the underground facility operator from the notification center); (iv) Total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by cause; (v) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired per § 192.703(c), categorized by material; and (vi) Any additional measures the operator determines are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the operator’s IM program in controlling each identified threat. §192.1007 (e) (1) Measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate effectiveness. …. An operator must consider the results of its performance monitoring in periodically reevaluating the threats and risks. 9.1 – 9.6 §192.1007 (f) Periodic Evaluation and Improvement. An operator must re-evaluate threats and risks on its entire pipeline and consider the relevance of threats in one location to other areas. §192.1007 (f) Each operator must determine the appropriate period for conducting complete program evaluations based on the complexity of its system and changes in factors affecting the risk of failure. The operator must conduct a complete program reevaluation at least every five years. The operator must consider the results of the performance monitoring in these evaluations. §192.1007 (g) Report results. Report, on an annual basis, the four measures listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) of this section, as part of the annual report required by § 191.11. An operator also must report the four measures to the state pipeline safety authority if a state exercises jurisdiction over the operator’s pipeline. §192.1009 Each operator must report, on an annual basis, information related to failure of compression couplings, excluding those that result only in nonhazardous leaks, as part of the annual report required by §191.11 beginning with the report submitted March 15, 2011. This information must include, at a minimum, location of the failure in the system, nominal pipe size, material type, nature of failure including any contribution of local pipeline environment, coupling manufacturer, lot number and date of manufacture, and other information that can be found in markings on the failed coupling. An operator also must report this information to the state pipeline safety authority if a state exercises jurisdiction over the operator’s pipeline. §192.1011 An operator must maintain records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this subpart for at least 10 years. The records must include copies of superseded integrity management plans developed under this subpart. 7.1, 10.1 174 10.2 10.2 11.1 11.1 12.0 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart P §192.1013 (a) An operator may propose to reduce the frequency of periodic inspections and tests required in this part on the basis of the engineering analysis and risk assessment required by this subpart. (b) An operator must submit its proposal to the PHMSA Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility regulated by the State, the appropriate State agency. The applicable oversight agency may accept the proposal on its own authority, with or without conditions and limitations, on a showing that the operator’s proposal, which includes the adjusted interval, will provide an equal or greater overall level of safety. (c) An operator may implement an approved reduction in the frequency of a periodic inspection or test only where the operator has developed and implemented an integrity management program that provides an equal or improved overall level of safety despite the reduced frequency of periodic inspections. 175 IM Plan Reference Not covered by IM Plan APPENDIX COPY OF 49 CFR PART 192, SUBPART 176 63934 Federal Registeri 1tfol. F4, No. Z321r Friday, December it, 2909:? Rules and Regulations 2. Section 192.333 is revised to read as follows: ?192.353 Excess tlow valve installation. I Definitions. As used in this section: Repfaced service fine means a natural gas service line where the fitting that connects the service line to the main is replaced or the piping connected to this ?tting is replaced. Service fine serving singie-famiiy residence means a natural gas service line that begins at the fitting that connects the service line to the main and serves only one single-family residence. fb] Instaflarian required. An excess ?ow valve installation must comply with the performance standards in 192.331. The operator must install laced service line serving a single?famiEfy residence after February 2. 2911]. unless one or more of the following conditions is present: The service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or greater throughout the year: The operator has prior experience with contaminants in the gas stream that could interfere with the EFi-"s eration or cause loss ofservice to a residence: An EFV could interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities. such as blowing liquids from the line: or An EFV meeting performance standards in 192.381 is not commercially available to the operator. Reporting. Each operator must. on an annual basis. report the number of EF?v's installed pursuant to this section as part of the annual report required by 191.11. I 3. In Par1192.a new subpart is added to read as follows: Suhpart P?Gas Distribution Pipeline Integnty Management {Int} Sec. 192. 19:11 What de?nitions apply to this sub art? 192. 1993 What do the regulations in this subpart cover? 192.1995 What must a gas distribution operator [other than a master meter or small LPG operator] do to implement this subpart? 192.1119? What are the required elements of an integrity management plan? 192. 1:199 What must an operator report when compression couplings fail? 192.191 '1 1What records must an operator keep? 192.1913 When may an operator deviate from required periodic inspections of this part? 192.1915 1What must a master meter or small liquefied petroleum gas operator do to implement this subpart?I Suhpart P?Gaa Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management (Ital) 192.1001 subpart? The following definitions apply to this subpart: Excavation Damage means any impact that results in the need to rgpair or replace an underground facility us to a weakening. ort partial or complete destruction. of the facility. including. but not limited to. the protective coating. lateral support. cathodic protection or the housing for the line device or facility. Hazardous Leak me ans a leak that represents an existing or probable hazard to persons or property and requires immediate repair or continuous action until the conditions are no longer hazardous. Integrity Management Pian or IM Pian means a written explanation of the mechanisms or procedures the operator will use to implement its integrity management program and to ensure comp iance with this sub art. Integrity Management rogram or IM Program means an overall approach by an operator to ensure the integrity of its gas istributiou system. Smaii LPG Gperator means an operator ofa liquefied petroleum gas distribution pipeline that serves fewer than 191] customers from a single source. What de?nitions apply to this ?192.1003 What do the regulations in this subpart rover? Generai. This subpart rescribes minimum requirements or an li'vi program for any gas distribution pipeline covered under this part. including liquefied etroleum gas systems. A gas distribution operator. other than a master meter operator or a small LPG operator. must follow the requirements in 192.1905?192.1913 of this subpart. A master meter operator or small LPG operator of a gas distribution pipeline must follow the reqpirements in @1921915 of this su part. 192.11.1115 What must a gas distribution operator {other than a master meter or small LPG operator} do to implement this subpart? No later than August 2. 2911 a gas distribution operator must develop and implement an integrity management program that includes a written integrity management plan as specified in 19110113". 192.1111}? What are the required elements of an inlegnty management plan? A written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing and implementing the following elements: ta] Knorviedge. An operator must demonstrate an understandin of its gas distribution system develope from reasonably available information. Identify the characteristics of the pipeline's design and eratious and the environmental factors at are necessary to assess the agjplicable threats and risks to its gas distri ution pipeline. Consider the information gained from past design. operations. and maintenance. Identify additional information needed and provide a plan for gaining that information over time throu normal activities conducted on pipeline [for example. design. construction. operations or maintenance activities]. Develop and implement a process by which the program will be reviewed periodically and refined and im roved as needed. 5] Provide for the capture and retention ofdata on any new pipeline installed. The data must include. at a minimum. the location where the new pipeline is installed and the material of ich it is constructed. IffE'J'tti?f threats. The operator must consider the following categories of threats to each gas distribution pipeline: Corrosion. natural forces. excavation damage. other outside force dama e. material. weld or joint failure [inciuding compression coupling]. equipment failure. incorrect eration. and other concerns that coul threaten the integrity of its pipeline. An operator must consider reason ably available information to identify existing and potential threats. Sources of data may include. but are not limited to. incident and leak history. corrosion control records. continuing surveillance records. patrolling records. maintenance history. and excavation damage ex erience. [Pct Evafuate anar ranl.? risk. An operator must evaluate the risks associated with its distribution pipeline. In this evaluation. the operator must determine the relative importance of each threat and estimate and rank the risks posed to its pipeline. This evaluation must consider each applicable current and potential threat. the likelihood of failure associated with each threat. and the otential consequences of sucli a failure. An operator may subdivide its pipeline into regions with similar characteristics contiguous areas within a distribution pipeline consisting of mains. services and other appurtenances: areas with common materials or environmental factors]. and for which similar actions Federal Registerl?tlol. F4, No. ZBElFI'iday, December 41-, ED?QlRules and Regulations 53935 likely would be effective in reducing risk. Identify and implement measures to address rislrs. Determine and implement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline. These measures must include an effective leak management program [unless all leaks are repaired when found]. Measure performance. monitor results. and evaluate e?fectiveness. Develop and monitor performance measures from an established baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its H'vl program. An operator must consider the results of its performance monitoring in periodically re-evaluating the threats and risks. These performance measures must include the following: Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or re aired as required by of is subchapter [or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired when found]. categorized by cause: [ii] Number of excavation damages: Number of excavation tickets [receipt of information by the underground facility operator from the notification center]: [iv] Total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired. categorized by cause: Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required by [or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired when found]. categorized by material: and [vi] Any additional measures the operator determines are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the operator's EM program in controlling each identifie threat. Periodic Evaluation and Improvement. An operator must re? evaluate threats and risks on its entire pipeline and consider the relevance of threats in one location to other areas. Each operator must determine the appropriate period for conducting comp ete program evaluations based on the complexity of its system and changes in factors affecting the risk of failure. An operator must conduct a complete program re?evaluation at least every five years. The operator must consider the results of the performance monitoring in these evaluations. l-le ort results. Report. on an annual asis. the four measures listed in paragraphs through of this section. as part ofthe annual report required by 191.11. An operator a so must report the four measures to the state pipeline safety authority if a state exercises jurisdiction over the operator's pipeline. 1l'ltt'lat must an operator report when compression couplings tail? Each operator must report. on an annual basis. information related to failure of compression couplings. excluding those that result only.r in non- hazardous leaks. as part of the annual report required by 191.11 beginning with the report submitted March 15. 21111. This information must include. at a minimum. location of the failure in the system. nominal pipe size. material type. nature of failure including any contribution oflocal pipeline environment. coupling manufacturer. lot number and date of manufacture. and other information that can be found in markings on the failed coupling. An operator also must report this information to the state pipeline safety.r authority if a state exercises jurisdiction over the operator?s pipeline. Mist records must an operator keep? An operator must maintain records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this subpart for at least 11) years. The records must include copies of superseded integrity management plans developed under this subpart. 1l'llherl may an operator deviate from required periodic inspections under this part? An operator may ropose to reduce the frequency of eriorflc inspections and tests required in this part on the basis of the engineering analysis and risk assessment required by this subpart. l-?Ln operator must submit its proposal to the PHMSA Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety or. in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility regulated by the State. the appropriate State agency. The applicable oversight agency may accept the pro osal on its own authority. with or wit rout conditions and limitations. on a showing that the operator?s roposal. which includes the adjustecf1 interval. will provide an equal or greater overall level of safety. An operator may implement an approved reduction in the frequency of a periodic inspection or test only where the operator has developed and implemented an integrity management program that provides an equal or improved overall level of safety despite the reduced frequency of periodic inspections. Mist must a master meter or small liquefied petroleum gas operator do to implement this subpart? General. No later than August 2. 2011 the operator ofa master meter system or a small LPG operator must develop and implement an IM program that includes a written ll'vl plan as specified in paragraph of this section. The H'vl ro am for these pipelines shouldjre?lact the relative sim licity ofthese types of pipelines. [b Elem ents. l-?L written integrity management plan must address. at a minimum. the following elements: Knowledge. The operator must demonstrate knowledge of its ipeline. which. to the extent known. sll'ljould include the approximate location and material of its pipeline. The operator must identify additional information needed and provide a lan for gaining knowledge over time rough normal activities conducted on the pipeline [for example. design. construction. operations or maintenance activities]. Identifv threats. The erator must consider. at'minimum. the gallowng categories of threats [existing and potential]: Corrosion. natural forces. excavation damage. other outside force damage. material or weld failure. equipment failure. and incorrect operation. Bank risks. The operator must evaluate the risks to its pipeline and estimate the relative importance of each identified threat. Id en tiva and implement measures to mitigate risks. The operator must determine and implement measures designed to reduce the risks ?'om failure ofits pipeline. Measure performance. monitor results. and evaluate e?fectiveness. The operator must monitor. as a performance measure. the number of leaks eliminated or repaired on its pipeline and their causes. Periodic evaluation and improvement. The operator must determine the appropriate period for conducting 1M program evaluations based on the complexity of its pi eline and changes in factors affecting tlle risk of failure. An operator must re-evaluate its entire program at least every five years. The operator must consider the results of the performance monitoring in these evaluations. Records. The operator must maintain. for a period of at least 11] years. the following records: A written 1M plan in accordance with this section. including superseded plans: Documents supporting threat identification: and Documents showing the location and material of all piping and appurtenances that are installed after 1e effective date of the operator's IM program and. to the extent known. the ocation and material of all pipe and 63936 Federal T4, Ne. ESE-'rFridajs, December 4, and Regulations appurtenances that were existing en the effective date cf the operator's Issued in DC en Nevember 2.0. ZEIDGI under Authcrit}r delegated in Part 1. [13ml Ilia I.. Qual'lel'man. Administrator. Dec. Filed 12?23?09: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 179 5494 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations meeting the requirements of 180.409(d) of this subchapter. Furthermore, each nurse tank must have the tests performed at least once every five years after the completion of the initial tests. After each nurse tank has successfully passed the visual. thickness, and pressure tests, welded repairs on the tank are prohibited. (vi) After the nurse tank has successfully passed the visual, thickness, and pressure tests, it must be marked in accordance with and permanently marked near the test and inspection markings with a unique owner?s identification number in letters and numbers at least 1/2 inch in height and width. (vii) Each nurse tank owner must maintain a copy of the test inspection report prepared by the inspector. The test report must contain the results of the test and meet the requirements in 180.417(b) and be made available to a DOT representative upon request. (3) Field truck mounted tanks. A non- DOT specification cargo tank [nurse tank) securely mounted on a field truck is authorized under the following conditions: The tank is in conformance with all the requirements of paragraph of this section, except that the requirement in paragraph does not apply; (ii) The tank is inspected and tested in accordance with subpart of part 180 of this subchapter as specified for an MC 331 cargo tank; The tank is restricted to rural roads in areas within 50 miles of the fertilizer distribution point where the nurse tank is loaded; and (iv) For the purposes of this section. a field truck means a vehicle on which a nurse tank is mounted that is designed to withstand off-road driving on hilly terrain. Specifically, the vehicle must be outfitted with stiffer suspension (for example, additional springs or airbags) than would be necessary for a comparable on-road vehicle. a rear axle ratio that provides greater low and torque, and a braking system and tires designed to ensure stability in hilly terrain. The field truck must have low annual over-the-road mileage and be used exclusively for agricultural purposes. 'k 'k 9: 9: Issued in Washington. DC, 011 January 13. 2011 under authority delegated in 40 CFR part 1. L. Quarterman, Administrator. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials SafetyAdministration. (FR Doc. 2011?2014 Filed am] BILLING CODE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 191, 192 [Docket No. 9354, Amdt. Nos. 191?22; Amdt. 192?116] RIN Pipeline Safety: Mechanical Fitting Failure Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule is an amendment to regulations involving DIMP. This final rule revises the pipeline safety regulations to clarify the types of pipeline fittings involved in the compression coupling failure information collection; changes the term ?compression coupling? to ?mechanical fitting,? aligns a threat category with the annual report; and clarifies the Excess Flow Valve (EFV) metric to be reported by operators of gas systems. This rule also announces the OMB approval of the revised Distribution Annual Report and a new Mechanical Fitting Failure Report. Finally, this rulemaking clarifies the key dates for the collection and submission of the new Mechanical Fitting Failure Report. DATES: This final rule takes effect April 4. 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni by phone at 202?366?4571 or by e-mail at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The DIMP Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on )une 25. 2008, (73 FR 36015, 36033), included a proposed provision for operators to report ?each material failure of plastic pipe (including fittings, couplings, valves and joints)? In the DIMP final rule published on December 4. 2009, (74 FR 63906) PHMSA deleted the proposed requirement to report plastic pipe failures but retained the requirement to report failures of couplings used in plastic pipe and proposed extending the reporting requirement to include failures of couplings used in metal pipe. The final rule also required operators to collect compression coupling failure information beginning January 1, 2010, and report the failures annually on the Annual Report Form by March 15, 2011. PHMSA used the DIMP final rule to open up a 30-day comment period to invite public comment on the proposal to extend the reporting requirement to include the failure of couplings used in metal pipe. Comments were due by )anuary 4, 2010. On December 31, 2009, (74 FR 60286) PHMSA extended the comment period to February 4, 2010, as requested by the American Gas Association. As a result of the comments received. PHMSA decided to revise the provisions relative to compression couplings as detailed in the comment summary below. PHMSA also used the DIMP final rule to solicit comments on the revised Gas Distribution Annual Report. The revisions to the report were primarily made to incorporate the performance measures for the Gas Distribution Integrity Management Program. To comply with the PRA requirements, PHMSA issued a 60-day comment period with comments due by February 4, 2010, to allow for comments on the proposed revisions. Once the comment period passed, PHMSA reviewed the comments and made adjustments to the Gas Distribution Annual Report. To gather further input on the proposed revisions, PHMSA published another Federal Register notice on June 28, 2010, (75 FR 36615) with comments due by July 28, 2010. PHMSA is issuing this rule to address the comments received 011 the notices detailed above and modify the pipeline safety regulations. In response to comments and as discussed below in more detail, PHMSA is changing the term ?Compression Coupling? to ?Mechanical Fitting? and providing a definition for ?Mechanical Fitting.? PHMSA is also using this rule to announce the revisions to the Gas Distribution Annual Report Form (PHMSA The revisions include moving the collection of mechanical fitting failure information to the new Gas Distribution Mechanical Fitting Failure Form (PHMSA The comments related to the proposed coupling reporting requirements, the reporting of installed excess flow valves, and the proposed revisions to the Distribution Annual Report Form are summarized in the next section. The comments and responses regarding the Gas Distribution Annual Report and a new Mechanical Fitting Failure Report are discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section. II. Summary of Comments In response to the request for comments in the DIMP final rule, PHMSA received twenty-three letters commenting 011 the proposals regarding compression coupling reporting Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations 5495 requirements, the reporting of EFVs installed, and the revisions to the Distribution Annual Report Form. The commenters included 13 pipeline operators, two trade associations representing pipeline operators, the association representing State pipeline safety regulators, one State pipeline regulatory agency. one manufacturer, and one industry consultant. A summary of comments along with responses is provided below. The majority of the comments recommended that PHMSA define key terms, revise the date to collect and report this information, and modify the Distribution Annual Report Form and instructions. They also requested consistency in the terminology used in 192.1009, the Annual Report Form and instructions, and the Incident Report Form and instructions. The comments addressed in this notice are detailed below: Comment Topic 1: Define Key Term: Compression Coupling Several commenters were not clear as to which pipeline fittings the term ?compression coupling? encompassed. The comments stated that ?compression coupling? implies a variety of mechanical joining methods. There was general consensus that the term ?mechanical fittings? encompasses fittings such as compression, stab, nut follower, and bolted. In general, commenters stated that the term ?mechanical fitting? is used in industry standards, and the meaning is broadly accepted. Some commenters proposed that PHMSA limit the collection of data by various criteria, such as compression-type mechanical fittings, plastic fittings, compression couplings, and fittings currently referenced in advisory bulletins. Commenters pointed out that there are differences between various types of compression fittings and to effectively address and mitigate the risks, the data collection needs to distinguish one type of compression fitting from another. PHMSA Response: PHMSA recognizes that operators need clarification as to which fitting failures they need to report. Therefore, PHMSA has changed the term ?compression coupling failure? to ?mechanical fitting failure? and has included a definition for Mechanical Fitting in 192.1001. Comment Topic 2: Reportable Mechanical Fitting Failures Commenters were also unclear if PHMSA intended for all mechanical fitting failures to be reported, regardless of the failure cause, or only those that were caused by material failures of the fitting. They were concerned that the lack of a standard definition of a reportable failure could result in inaccurate trending analysis. Commenters provided various opinions as to which hazardous mechanical fitting failure causes should be included in the data collection. One commenter stated that a hazardous leak caused by a compression coupling pulling out as the result of third party damage should not be considered a compression coupling failure since the failure is not indicative of the integrity and performance of a coupling. The commenter further stated that if a coupling fails as the result of another action, the operator should not be required to report the failure. On the other hand. another commenter stated that if a coupling leaks, it is a failure regardless of what failed, how it failed, or whether it failed in the body, the seal. or the pipe. Another operator indicated that the preamble in the final rule was clear that only hazardous leaks that were the result of ?material failure? should be reported. One commenter noted that instructions for the annual report state that a material defect of a fitting exceeding the reasonable service life is not to be listed as a ?Material or Weld? cause but as ?Other.? The commenters were uncertain if PHMSA would require fittings exceeding their reasonable service life to be reported as a mechanical fitting failure. Finally. another commenter questioned if a crack that propagates from the pipe into a compression coupling causing it to fail should be reported. Commenters requested that PHMSA provide examples of failures that must be reported. PHMSA Response: The objective of the data collection is to identify mechanical fittings that, based on historical data, are susceptible to failure. PHMSA intends for operators to report all types and all sizes of mechanical fitting (stab, nut follower, bolt, or other compression type] failures that result in a hazardous leak. The reporting requirements apply to failures in the bodies of mechanical fittings or failures in the joints between the fittings and pipe. PHMSA recognizes that mechanical fitting failures can be the primary cause of a leak or that they may leak as the result of another cause such as excavation damage. Operators are to report mechanical fitting failures as the result of any cause, including, but not limited to, excavation damage, exceeding their service life, poor installation practice. and incorrect application. Fittings are to be included regardless of the material they join. 181 Operators must report mechanical fittings that join steel-to-steel, steel-to- plastic. and plastic-to-plastic. Specific examples of mechanical fittings to be reported include, but are not limited to, transition fittings, risers. compression couplings, stab fittings, mechanical saddles, mechanical tapping tees, service tees, risers, sleeves, ells, wyes, and straight tees. Comment Topic 3: Reportable Aboveground Leaks Commenters sought criteria for defining reportable aboveground leaks. One commenter stated that operators should classify aboveground leaks differently from underground leaks because the vast majority ofthese fugitive emissions: 1. Dissipate harmlessly into the atmosphere; 2. Are located on meter sets. of the service regulator, and therefore involve low operating pressures; and 3. Are located at threaded joints that may release small quantities [parts per million] that can only be detected by sophisticated electronic leakage detection instruments. Meter sets commonly contain aboveground couplings where small leaks are eliminated by tightening. A widely accepted industry guidance document, Gas Pipeline Technical Committee Guide, does not currently provide gas leakage investigation and classification guidelines for aboveground leaks. The commenter also proposed a definition that would establish criteria for a ?Hazardous Aboveground Leak? on Outside Piping and on Inside Piping. The commenter further proposed a definition for ?Reportable Aboveground Leak? based on the ?Hazardous Aboveground Leak? criteria. Alternatively, one commenter stated that the criteria for reporting leaks should be expanded to include leaks that can be cured by re-tightening, since the leak could have been avoided if the fitting had been sufficiently tightened at its initial installation. By defining these releases as ?not leaks,? the commenter asserted that important data may be lost, data that could possibly identify an area or company whose compression fittings could pose a threat. PHMSA Response: PHMSA recognizes that operators seek additional criteria to define which leaks on aboveground pipe should be reported. Operators have previously reported the total number of leaks eliminated/repaired during the year on the Annual Report Form. PHMSA has not made changes to the criteria for collecting data for this field. 5496 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations Therefore, all aboveground leaks should continue to be reported as detailed in the instructions for the Annual Report. The reporting of hazardous leaks repaired or eliminated is a new performance measure. Operators. PHMSA, and State regulatory agencies may decide to refine the criteria for reporting the measure when there is data to evaluate. Hazardous leaks, whether they occur aboveground or below ground, need to be reported. A hazardous leak meets both of the following definitions regardless of whether the leak occurs aboveground or below ground: A ?leak? is defined in the Annual Report instructions as an unintentional escape of gas from the pipeline. A non- hazardous release that can be eliminated by lubrication, adjustment, or tightening, is not a leak. ?Hazardous Lealc? is defined in 192.1001 as a leak that represents an existing or probable hazard to persons or property and requires immediate repair or continuous action until the conditions are no longer hazardous. Comment Topic 4: EFV Data One commenter requested that PHMSA use the total number of EFVs installed in an operator?s system at the end of the year as the metric for reportable EFV data. not the number of EFVs installed during the year. This change would make the EF metric consistent with the system data reported in PART B?System Description on the Annual Report Form and with the directive contained within Title 49 U.S.C. The commenter suggested that the information collected in Part of the Annual Report Form be designated as, ?The Number of EFVs in System at End of Year on single-family residences.? PHMSA Response: The requirement to report EFV metrics was mandated in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement. and Safety Act of 2006, codified at 49 U.S.C. The statute requires operators to annually report to PHMSA the number of EFVs installed on their systems to single- family residence service lines. PHMSA will continue to collect information regarding the number of EFVs installed on single-family residential services during the year. In addition, PHMSA will collect estimates on the total number of EFVs in the system at the end of the year. Further discussion on EFVs is found in the Paperwork Reduction Act section under ?Gas Distribution Annual Report.? Comment Topic 5: Delay Mechanical Fitting Failure Information Collection and Reporting Date Since the current date to start collecting data precedes the effective date of this final rule, commenters proposed that PHMSA delay the start date for collecting mechanical fitting failure data until calendar year 2011, and delay the due date for submitting this information until March 15. 2012. Commenters stated that operators need time to make changes to processes and procedures for capturing data, programming to data collection systems [6?12 months], changes to data collection forms [paper or electronic]. and train personnel on new requirements. According to the commenters, these changes cannot occur until final requirements are released. Operators requested that PHMSA incorporate all planned changes to the annual report before operators are required to change their data collection process. PHMSA Response: Based on the modifications to 192.1009 for reporting mechanical fitting failures and the creation of the new Mechanical Fitting Failure Report, PHMSA is requiring that reporting of Mechanical Fitting Failures begin with calendar year 2011. PHMSA will allow for operators to submit reports throughout the calendar year with all reports due March 15 of the following year. However, the new integrity management performance reporting criteria for the Gas Distribution Annual Report has been available since the DIMP final rule was published December 4, 2009. Therefore, PHMSA will not delay the reporting of the revised Gas Distribution Annual Report. Calendar year 2010 data will be required to be reported on the revised 2011 Gas Distribution Annual Report. Final Rule This final rule revises 49 CFR parts 191 and 192 to amend certain integrity management requirements applicable to distribution pipelines. This final rule addresses comments regarding the data collection scope for ?mechanical fittings failures? and the implementation date for data collection and submission. Section-by?Section Analysis Section 191.12 Distribution Systems: Mechanical Fitting Failure Report This section has been added to incorporate the reporting requirements for the new Mechanical Fitting Failure Report into the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, the submission 104: requirements have been moved to this section. Section 192.383 EFV Installation This section is revised to specify that the reporting metrics for EFVs are detailed in the Gas Distribution Annual Report. Section 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan? Paragraph of this section is revised to align threats to the integrity of the pipeline with the ?cause of leak? data fields on the Gas Distribution Annual Report Form. The phrase ?material, weld or joint failure (including compression coupling)? is replaced with the phrase ?Material or Welds.? Section 192.1009 What must an operator report when a mechanical fitting fails? This section is being revised to change the term ?compression coupling? to ?mechanical fitting? and remove the listing of information to be collected and submitted. This section is also revised to refer operators to the new Mechanical Fitting Failure reporting requirements in 191.12. IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices tatu wry/Legal ulemakin This final rule is published under the authority of the Federal Pipeline Safety Law [49 U.S.C. 00101 et seq]. Section 60102 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations governing design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures. testing, construction, extension. operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. This rulemaking amends the recently published DIMP final rule to finalize the provisions for reporting mechanical fittings failures. A. Privacy Act Statement Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment [or signing the comment if submitted for an association. business, labor union, etc.]. You may review complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477] or you may visit l1ttp:// docketsinfo.dot.gOV/. B. Executive Order 13132 PHMSA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132 (?Federalism?). The final rule does not have a Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/ Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations 5497 substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This final regulation does not preempt State law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. C. Executive Order 12866?Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f] of Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735) and. therefore. was not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). D. Executive Order 13175 PHMSA analyzed this final rule according to Executive Order 13175 [?Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments?). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 cf seq), PHMSA must consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the DIMP final rule, PHMSA detailed the small business impact on the small business and determined that 9,090 small operators would be impacted by the rule. Further. PHMSA estimated that the costs associated with the DIMP final rule would result in a significant adverse economic impact for some of the smallest affected entities. This final rule does not broaden the scope of the DIMP final rule. Therefore, PHMSA believes that the provisions contained in this final rule will not have a significant impact on small entities. Based on the facts available about the expected impact of this rulemaking, I certify, under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605] that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. F. PRA In response to the comments received from the 60-day PRA notice contained in the DIMP final rule, PHMSA made a number of revisions to the Gas Distribution Annual Report. To maintain transparency and gather further input, PHMSA published a 30- day notice [June 28, 2010; 75 FR 36615) to seek additional comments on the revised Gas Distribution Annual Report. PHMSA received eight comments which have been reviewed and responded to as follows: Section of form Comment PHMSA response/resulting action General .. Part A. Operator Information Question 6. (Commodity Transported). Part C. Total Leaks and Hazardous Leaks Eliminated/Repaired During Year. Part E. EFV Data .. Standardize information collection terminology used for both Incident and Annual Report Forms. Instructions are unclear as to how operators with multiple gases should respond. There is no specific entry for collecting me- chanical fitting leaks eliminated/repaired dur- ing the year in Part C. Since failure data on such fittings is collected in Part F, it would make sense to collect data specifically on them in Part C. Modify form instructions for Part to have all mechanical fitting failures included in ?Ma- terial and Welds? as stated in Remove from ?Equipment?. For aboveground leaks, clarify the instructions to state that operators should only report hazardous aboveground leaks (the prepon- derance of aboveground leaks are trivial and represent no threat to the public). Operators should simply report all EFVs in- stalled on the distribution system, not just on Single Family Residences. (No records to distinguish commercial and residential). The instructions should expresst state that operators can estimate the number of EFVs in service. The option regarding reporting single-family or single-family branch services is confusing and holds no value. (Should be removed). This is a significant change from what was originally proposed, which was to report the number of EFVs that the operator installed during the year, which was easy to capture. Plus no discussion as to why this change was made. 183 PR1. This will be addressed during the infor- mation collection renewal process that oc- curs every three years. PR2. This question has been removed. PR3. PHMSA is moving Part to a separate form and therefore, will not make the sug- gested revision. PR4. PHMSA is moving Part to a separate form and therefore, will not make the sug- gested revision. PR5. PHMSA disagrees. PHMSA maintains that, based on the intent of recent guidance, all aboveground leaks should be reported unless the leak is a non-hazardous leak that can be eliminated by lubrication, adjustment, or tightening. PR6. As detailed in DIMP, PHMSA will require each operator, on an annual basis, to report the number of EFVs installed during the year on service lines serving single-family residences. PHMSA has included another block to allow for companies to estimate the total number of EFVs installed in their sys- tem. PR7. PHMSA will allow for estimates on the total number of EFVs in the system. PR8. PHMSA agrees and has removed this provision. PR9. PHMSA is requiring primarily the number of EFVs installed per ?192.383 for the year. PHMSA is also requiring operators to esti- mate the total number of EFVs installed in their system. 5498 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations Section of form Comment PHMSA response/resulting action Part F. Mechanical Fitting Failure Data (This information will be placed on the new me- chanical fitting failure form). It is not a problem identifying EFVs added to system for the year (w/no distinction to type). Will successive annual reports require a cu- mulative total number of EFVs installed or only the number installed for the calendar year reporting period? If cumulative, from what date forward? Form a stakeholders group to review the re- sults and decide if the information request should sunset after the three- year OMB ap- proval. Information in Part is comprehen- sive and duplicative to other data collection efforts. A major problem is the enormous expansion of the data. Mechanical fittings encompass an almost infinite universe of fittings. Federal Register notice provides no explanation or justification for the expan- sion of the data request. Expanding the re- porting scope increases reporting require- ments by several orders of magnitude. There is no information in this OMB ap- proval request regarding the paperwork bur- den for the great expansion in the data re- quest. (Replace ?mechanical fittings? with ?compression couplings?). The ?other? category following stab, nut fol- lower, and bolted couplings should be de- leted since they are the only type of com- pression type fittings. Delete the line beginning with ?Was the Fail- ure a Result of? and the associated subcat- egories. Delete ?Pull Out? as a choice for ?Location of Leak.? Rather than use the bullet outline throughout Part F, use a numbered outline format so that the subsections of Part can be clearly referenced if questions arise. The form should allow ?Unavailable? to be en- tered under ?Year Installed,? ?Year Manu- factured,? and ?If Year Unknown, Provide Decade nstalled:? This option is provided for in the instructions for the bulleted items after this section. Part of the form would be reproduced for each separate event where failure of a com- pression fitting results in a hazardous leak. PHMSA should provide that the (electronic) form have an index or tracking number to identify separate events within the calendar year (such as Such a mecha- nism is important, not only to distinguish be- tween reports compiled during the year, but also in the case where information is later determined to require a supplemental report to be filed. The section titled ?Location of Leak? should be relabeled ?Type of Failure? with the existing choices: ?Leak Through Seal,? ?Leak Through Body,? or ?Pull Out.? The subsection ?Was the Failure a Result of? should have a choice of ?Unknown? or ?Other? since the cause may never be known. Operators should be able to file Part throughout the year. 184 PR10. See and PR9. PR11. See above. PHMSA is requesting CY 2010 data based on installation pursuant to PHMSA is also requesting op- erators to provide an estimated total number of EFVs installed in a system. PR12. PHMSA will first seek to use the notice and comment process. However, PHMSA will continue to consider such actions for fu- ture revisions. PR13. PHMSA is not expanding the reporting scope. Based on DIMP we are only looking for failures that result in a hazardous leak on ?compression style? fittings eg. stab, nut follower, bolted). PR14. PHMSA wants to confirm that there are no other types of compression type coupling in use. Therefore, PHMSA is retaining the ?other? category with a slight revision to change ?other? to ?Other Compression Type Fitting.? PR15. PHMSA has deleted the line beginning with ?Was the Failure a Result of? and re- vised the associated subcategories. PR16. PHMSA is keeping the ?Pull Out" as a choice for ?Location of the Leak? and revis- ing ?Location of Leak? to ?How did the leak occur.? PR17. PHMSA created a new form for Part with a numbered outline format. PR18. PHMSA revised allow for ?Unavailable.? the instructions to PR19. In addition to separating out Part onto its own form, PHMSA will create a unique identifier for each report. PR20. PHMSA revised the section title from ?Location of Leak? to ?How did the leak occur? to identify the visual evidence of the leak. PR21. PHMSA is deleting that subsection. PR22. Operators will be able to file the new form for Mechanical Fitting failures through- out the year. Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations 5499 Section of form Comment PHMSA response/resulting action PR23. PHMSA has revised the Location of Leak section as detailed above. Under ?Location of Leak? replace ?Pull Out? with ?Leak at Separation of Pipe and Cou- pling.? (more appropriate and in line with other descriptions). Annual report should only contain summary data. PR24. Part is now on its own form. The resulting revised Gas Distribution Annual Report and new Mechanical Fitting Failure Report have been approved by OMB under the information collection titled ?Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators? Control No. 2137? 0522). G. Executive Order 13211 This final rule is not a ?significant energy action? under Executive Order 13211 [Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). It is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use. Further, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated this rule as a significant energy action. H. Unfunded Mandates This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of$100 million (adjusted for inflation currently estimated to be $132 million) or more in any one year to either State. local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the final rule. I. National Environmental Policy Act PHMSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with section 102[2)[c) of the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4332), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations [40 CFR 1500?1508), and DOT Order 5610.1C, and has determined that this action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. PHMSA conducted an Environmental Assessment on the DIMP NPRM and did not receive any comment 011 the preliminary analysis. In the final rule. we concluded that the rule would not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. The amendments we are making to the final rule do not change that determination. The Environmental Assessment is available for review in the Docket. 1. Regulation Identifier Number A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects 49 CPR Part 191 Pipeline safety, Incident and Annual Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CFP: Part 192 Integrity management, Pipeline safety. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending part 191 and part 192 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY ANNUAL REPORTS, INCIDENT REPORTS, AND SAFETY- RELATED CONDITION REPORTS 1. The authority citation for part 191 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102. 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117. 60118, and 60124; and 49 CFR 1.53. 2. A new 191.12 is added to read as follows: 191.12 Distribution Systems: Mechanical Fitting Failure Reports Each mechanical fitting failure. as required by 192.1009, must be submitted on a Mechanical Fitting Failure Report Form PHMSA 2. A11 operator must submit a mechanical fitting failure report for each mechanical fitting failure that occurs within a calendar year not later than March 15 of the following year [for example, all mechanical failure reports for calendar year 2011 must be submitted no later than March 15. 2012). Alternatively, an operator may elect to submit its reports throughout the year. In addition, an operator must 163 also report this information to the State pipeline safety authority if a State has obtained regulatory authority over the operator?s pipeline. PART OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS 3. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102. 60104, 60108, 60109. 60110. 60113, 60116, 60118. and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53. 4. In 192.383, paragraph is revised to read as follows: 192.383 Excess flow valve installation. ?k 'k 'k 9: Reporting. Each operator must report the EFV measures detailed in the annual report required by 191.11. I 5. In 192.1001, a definition for ?Mechanical fitting? is added in appropriate alphabetical order as follows: 192.1001 What definitions apply to this subpart? ?k ?k 9c Mechanicalfitting means a mechanical device used to connect sections of pipe. The term ?Mechanical fitting? applies only to: Stab Type fittings; Nut Follower Type fittings; Bolted Type fittings; or Other Compression Type fittings192.1007, in paragraph the first sentence is revised to read as follows: 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan? ?k 'k 'k 9: Identify threats. The operator must consider the following categories of threats to each gas distribution pipeline: corrosion. natural forces, excavation damage. other outside force damage, material or welds, equipment failure, incorrect operations. and other concerns that could threaten the integrity of its pipeline. ?k is 7. Section 192.1009 is revised to read as follows: 5500 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 21/Tuesday, February 1, 2011/Rules and Regulations 192.1009 What must an operator report when a mechanical fitting fails? Except as provided in paragraph of this section. each operator of a distribution pipeline system must submit a report on each mechanical fitting failure, excluding any failure that results only in a nonhazardous leak, on a Department of Transportation Form PHMSA The report(s] must be submitted in accordance with 191.12. [13) The mechanical fitting failure reporting requirements in paragraph of this section do not apply to the following: Master meter operators; 186 Small LPG operator as defined in 192.1001; or LNG facilities. Issued in Washington DC. on January 24, 2011. L. Quarterman, Adrm?m'sfmtor. Doc, 2011?2081 Filed 1?31?11:8:45 am] BILLING CODE 491 APPENDIX I ANNUAL DOT REPORT GFR Faun: I1 at'a'l D-EfI-atl'l'd human trench 'ihlID? trench 135' full 54.411 abate-'1 perm mp! Tilt :vlpel'lah' '11 amen '43 asp-1:111:11 I13 53'22 ENE: anTy'p-a: a J-3 Data 5mm: and Hazard-5.5 Hateras {EHIrusnonl? 21' 313' 6-19-15? ANNUAL REPORT FDR CALENDAR 2012 GAS Abra ?rm-um arrdapu'xn Plum: 3 Benn-1b: ape-uh'h'falnh: Emplwa adult-chm I'm?arm Math?! If :lspma mmta'aln-ZWE $1113 WEE-ETD: rum-terrains ntvI?at-zn mew-:41 a rcpz'uu?cur'rh menu-:41 4:91er late .ur-n I11: ?'rrefrh1m'ralmc?ms Hartman-dd: rude-:1 mm-?tnn rum-wanna?! mectnn 3" Murat-:41. Edi:- il'l! marl-11m: Serum-11m 13.5111: In: turd-:1 ?mar-1'15 menu-:41 ?ned-:11 Sewn-m 11"]1 HEW {Se-1.1mm 5E -. Imam-Few 2. CF mumm- EEG-EITHHEII 21 Stream-areas 5-15 41mm th-gtn 5-44 mm 211cm Enrirgun 22.51415 A- 22. EIF-sze 35203 3. CIDEHHTC-RES EI-IGIT IDENTIFICAHIZIH 1a: n1. HARE ADDRESS :1 5.15 manamu aw: arty 42.51315 A- map-3512 35203 E. STATE w?u-zH DFEPAEG A- [Em WED numE mm BARE com-En HARE cam-En mm BUFFER mum-w PLAN: Inca-4 3F 3:444: an: 45:53:- 1::an A353): 441': 44:: 42.33:: "17.31Emma mas-9 -4.51 E156. 3-54 - 11-- 14 :e 14-. 54-.1- 187 Hl?'liTEIl AT EHEIIJ-FTEAFI HULFHIL Hum-rm -LEI-E z'rrlnu 4' mm: rr- n'nnl'THnL l1' 13qu '11: 53-1-3.- mn- um: cm: cu: lbll.? I.'uu: Luz-1- 1c:- Iul; a: r: um: 2-11; mm:- 2-51- 4411.1- um: I.'uu: Luz-1- um: 2-11; um: 5:51; cu: Jam: 'u'u 53:11: nus-xx 12:1- IH EVETEH hT Er]:ch AW LENGTH: 11": HAHN-EL urinal-w :u'n'ul. r1rlleu nnu' rthI' ruraL "1w: Ema-J .l mm u- ?iwmu'i'" '1 3';th Jun Jul: I: I.- 'u'u 1:51: 4-1: 5-I- MEI HLHBEFZCH: BIT BEECH: IHETALLATICH nun-um Flu-m:- Inna-Hy: I'm-er Inna-un- mud-am: macaw can :52" :Iubu; Jaw-.0: man: due-u: mum; ":Hau; 51-" new: 188 mum Hill-IS SERVICE 11F LEAH HEARD-DUE- WWIDH 3'11 1-1-3 E33 i 1:5 5 1B4 MHPEE 2'11: 1E3 - MWEE 2E 13 Ed 135- 1315 2E 25 Eil- ELSE 1 El LE1 0355-311ch 14 3 37" El EITHER 211: 3-1 421 1E3 ATEHEIEI-F EGHEEIULEEI PEI-R REFAH 1m PART - PART DATA ?ulLlla'EpEiEF EWMSESZ 2'31 CPLEHIIEH GIHG-E 1'1-191 I IH 11mm . 15 3-41 THE EH: CF Em: PART TDTAL FEDERA- HEJAIHEDCH I: LHADCDUUTTED MEGA-SAG P. DEHEEHT TDTAL FISH l'u'l??ul'l'l'LS EHZIHG DF THE EEJCITTIHS INPUT FEE 23% - Elell'm'r 11I 19151 3115-25-51] 3.11:1 3'1: 31:1 FIEJTIE HJn'tE-fj 311mm 189