Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ct2015ngprogramevaluation
2015 CT NG Program Evaluation - ct2015ngprogramevaluation (Connecticut; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ct2015ngprogramevaluation
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation for CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- Program Performance D -- Compliance Activities E -- Incident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 1#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 22015 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2015 Gas State Agency: Connecticut Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes Date of Visit: 08/30/2016 - 09/01/2016 Agency Representative: Karl Baker, Public Utilities Supervisor of Technical Analysis PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Arthur H. House, Chairman Agency: Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Address: Ten Franklin Square City/State/Zip: New Britian, Connecticut 06051 INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2015 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 44 44 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 5 5 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 11 11 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 6 6 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 112 112 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 2#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Checked and accurate. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Checked and accurate. 1 1 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Checked and accurate. 1 1 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No incidents in 2015. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Checked and accurate. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: All files kept electronically on seperate program server. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Checked and accurate. 1 1 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: CT rules automatically adopt all federal safety regulations. 1 1 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 3#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 4Evaluator Notes: Goals: Maintain accelerated cast-iron and bare steel replacement across all operators. Achieve 100% score on PHMSA evaluation. Reduce excavation damages. Accomplishments: Worked with last operator to further accelerate cast-iron and bare steel replacement. Received 100% score for 2014 PHMSA program audit. Continued with streamlined civil penalty process for excavation damages. Worked on new excavation damage prevention regulations. Successfully 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 4#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 2 2 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 1 1 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post- inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 1 1 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 1 1 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 1 1 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 5#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 6c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Yes No Needs Improvement Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures, Sections 7, 10 and 11. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 6#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? (Director of State Programs may modify with just cause) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 500.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 4.54 = 998.80 Ratio: A / B 500.00 / 998.80 = 0.50 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: .50 ratio exceeds needed .38 ratio 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Each senior staff inspector has completed all required core TQ training within the required timeframe. In addition Karl Baker, Bruce Benson and Daniel Nivison have received OQ, DIMP/IMP and Root Cause training. John DePaolo has been in the program since June 2010, has completed all required core courses, and OQ, DIMP and Root Cause, and is currently scheduled for additional courses as they become available. Daniel Tomasino and Kevin Dowling, fairly new hires, have almost finished the core classes and are scheduled or waitlisted for additional TQ classes. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Program Manager has over 22 years of experience in pipeline safety. 2 2 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No response required ? none provided. 2 NA 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Seminar held with the other New England states on October 20 and 21, 2015, in West Dover, VT. 2 2 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 5 5 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 7#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 8Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: Confirmed that inspections were performed in accordance with Administrative Procedures Section 10. O&M inspection on gas LDCs every other year and on LP operators every 5 years. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 2 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: State utilizes Federal forms for specialized inspections (e.g. LNG, DIMP, CRM, PAPEI and OQ). O&M form is Federal form supplemented with state regs. Program Manager controls changes to forms. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was 1 1 examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Performed review during O&M audits. Last audits performed on 3 LDCs and Norwich Public Utilities in 2011, 2013 and 2015. Question inserted on inspection form. 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including 1 1 appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Performed review during O&M audits. Last audits performed on 3 LDCs and Norwich Public Utilities in 2011, 2013 and 2015. Question inserted on inspection form. 10 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Performed review during O&M audits. Last audits performed on 3 LDCs and Norwich Public Utilities in 2011, 2013 and 2015. Question inserted on inspection form. Also reviewed when State responds to active excavation damages. 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Performed review during O&M audits. Last audits performed on 3 LDCs and Norwich Public Utilities in 2011, 2013 and 2015. This is also accomplished during normal review of One-Call damages that are mandatorily reported to the GPSU. 12 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Review and analysis of Operator Annual Reports performed annually (reviewed PIPEDATA.XLS located in S: \GasPipelineSafetyUnit\GASPIPE\Undergnd Facilities). As part of investigation of incidents/accidents, incident/accident data is reviewed for accuracy and to ensure that operators correctly file appropriate PHMSA incident forms. DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 8#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 9Trends, program effectiveness and a check for operator issues is performed by using leak response time data, class 2 leak backlog data, third-party damage data and cast iron/bare steel replacement program data. Reviewed spreadsheet. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, DIMP/IMP inspection results into federal database in a 2 2 timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Uploaded all applicable OQ inspection results into the federal database in a timely manner, or used IA, and responded to IMDB notifications. There are no intrastate transmission lines in Connecticut. For interstate operators, the PHMSA team leaders are responsible for uploading this data for team inspections and CT uploads data for inspections where they are lead. All of the IMP inspections that CT was responsible for were performed in IA and therefore do not need to be uploaded to the IMDB. 14 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: No intrastate transmission lines in Connecticut. CT has not been asked by PHMSA, as part of annual interstate inspection plan, to review this data for interstate operators. At request from Zach Barrett to NAPSR, CT has reviewed interstate operator data on PHMSA DataMart, comparing annual report data to NPMS data. 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 2 2 regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Annual field inspections are performed on all intrastate operators that are required to have the program (see inspection database for dates of inspections). In addition, an annual review of the Drug and Alcohol Testing MIS Data Collection forms is performed. Verification is made that any positive tests are responded to in accordance with the operator's program. Conducted 6 in 2015 - scheduled every 5 years in written procedures. 16 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 2 2 of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Both headquarters, protocols 1 through 8, and field, protocol 9, inspections have been performed on all intrastate operators. Last in 2015 - scheduled every 5 years in written procedures. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No intrastate transmission lines in Connecticut. DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 NA Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 9#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 10GPSU has taken part in IMP inspections of interstate operators as part of interstate annual inspection plan. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P DIMP ? First round of program inspections should have been complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DIMP audits completed on LDCs, Norwich and propane operators per Administrative Procedures. DIMP - every 5 years. Dimp implementation - every year. 2 2 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years per RP1162 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: PAPEI audits performed on all LDCs and Norwich Public Utilities in 2012. Every 5 years and brief review each year. 2 2 20 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 1 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Communications occur with all operators on a regular basis. CT attends and communicates information at Call Before You Dig Board of Directors meetings and Public Awareness meetings. CT attends and provides training at operator training sessions with local officials including fire departments. CT participates in the Northeast Gas Association CT Advisory Group meetings as well. PURA maintains a website that has access to all docketed matters which include all pipeline safety and One-Call enforcement proceedings. 21 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No SRCs in 2015. 1 NA 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: All data on class 1 and 2 leaks are required to be submitted to the GPSU on a monthly basis. This data is reviewed to determine trends including any plastic pipe issues. Also, during O&M audits, this is reviewed under 192.617 and during DIMP audits. Reviewed data. 23 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes. DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 10#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1124 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: No waivers or special permits issued. 1 NA 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Attended meeting in Arizona in CY 2015. 1 1 26 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Reviwed and discussed State Metrics page with program manager. 27 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 44 Total possible points for this section: 44 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 11#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: In Administrative Procedures Sections 12, 13 and 14. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 4 document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Document probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement c. Resolve probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement e. Were applicable civil penalties outlined in correspondence with operator(s) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Reviewed various violations reports and civil penalty dockets and communications were sent to appropriate personnel. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 2 2 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Due process is spelled out in the violation letter or civil penalty docket. Reviewed letters and docket items. 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Program Manager created the current process for imposing civil penalties. Significant civil penalties were issued in CY 2015 (assessed = $435,800, collected = $459,450). 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Civil penalties were issued in CY 2015 (assessed - $435,800, collected - $459,450). 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 12#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 13Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 13#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures - Section 20. 2 2 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 incidents, including after-hours reports? And did state keep adequate records of Incident/ Accident notifications received? Chapter 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Acknowledgement of MOU between NTSB and PHMSA (Appendix D) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Acknowledgement of Federal/State Cooperation in case of incident/accident (Appendix E) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Administrative Procedures Section 20.4. GPSU staff is on-call 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Access database tracks incidents. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No incidents in CY 2015. 1 NA 4 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review 3 NA Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: No incidents in CY 2015. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No incidents in CY 2015. 1 NA 6 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No incidents in CY 2015. 1 NA 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 14#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 15No incidents in CY 2015. Incidents/accidents have been presented at NAPSR meetings and pipeline safety seminars. In addition, all incident/accident reports are sent to all applicable operators in the state for their review and response to any applicable recommendations included in the report. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 5 Total possible points for this section: 5 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 15#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 16PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or 2 2 its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Performed review during O&M audits. Last audits performed on 3 LDCs and Norwich in 2011, 2013 and 2015. Also state regulation, 16-345-4(a)(5), states "?If the excavator is utilizing trenchless excavation, the excavator shall, if such excavation is expected to cross or encroach within the approximate location of underground facilities either horizontally or vertically, prior to the crossing or encroaching, determine the precise location of such underground facilities expected to be so crossed or encroached." Question inserted on inspection form. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written 2 2 procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Performed review during O&M audits. Last audits performed on 3 LDCs and Norwich in 2011, 2013 and 2015. This is also accomplished during normal review of One-Call damages that are reported to the GPSU. 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 2 2 facilities to its regulated companies? (i.e. such as promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices encouraging adoption of the 9 Elements, etc.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The GPSU has performed a review of the CGA Best Practices document and determined that all pertinent best practices are included in the state regulations. CT is currently working on revising their underground damage prevention laws. State program has adopted the 9 elements. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: GPSU collects and evaluates this data. 2010 ? 3.5 total; 1.6 gas 2011 ? 2.8 total; 1.3 gas 2012 ? 3.0 total; 1.6 gas 2013 ? 3.1 total; 1.6 gas 2014 ? 2.9 total; 1.5 gas 2015 ? 2.9 total; 1.4 gas 2 2 Approximately twice per year the damage prevention data is reviewed to determine trends. These trends are reviewed to determine where emphasis is to be placed. These trends are also reviewed with the Call Before You Dig Public Awareness Committee and where appropriate, the public awareness campaigns are modified. Civil Penalties Collected 2010 - $14,500 2011 - $160,500 2012 - $156,000 2013 - $117,000 2014 - $110,350 2015 - $134,100 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 16#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 175 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 17#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 18PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Connecticut Natural Gas Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: John DePaolo Location of Inspection: Tolland, CT Date of Inspection: August 31, 2016 Name of PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Inspection form is on tablet. Inspector takes notes and transfers to tablet on-site. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. No issues. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 1 1 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: 2 2 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) 2 2 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 18#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 19Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: inspection. Yes, Mr. DePalo has 6 years pipeline safety experience and completed all TQ training courses to conduct a standard 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, there was plenty of discussion with operator during the inspection on the activities going on. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: None found 1 NA 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance Info Only Info Only DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 19#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 20F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 20#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 21PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: State uses IA to document inspections. 1 1 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: State followed Eastern Region inspection plan. 1 1 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 State submitted required data to Mark Wendorff, Eastern Region within 60 days of completing the inspection. 4 Were probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: State submitted violation data to Mark Wendorff, Eastern Region. 1 1 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No imminent safety hazards found in CY 2015. 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 State submitted violation data to Mark Wendorff, Eastern Region within 60 days of discovery of violation. 1 1 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. State submitted violation data to Mark Wendorff, Eastern Region. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Prior to evalution, Jim Anderson sent an evaluation form to Mark Windorff, PHMSA Eastern Region, and asked if he had any issues with the CT DEEP in their Interstate Agency Agreement. His Response: Yes I am still handling the interstate agents. I would give CT a 1, or Yes, for the seven (7) questions. DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 21#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 22Under comments in eight (8), Karl Baker and staff have been very responsive to any PHMSA Eastern Region requests, and very good at following our Region specific methods for handling inspections, probable violations, etc. Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 22#
CT NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 23PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 3 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA Evaluator Notes: 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 108352811 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Connecticut CT Dept of Energy and Env Protection, Page: 23#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.