Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA de2009ngprogramevaluation
2009 DE NG Program Evaluation - de2009ngprogramevaluation (Delaware; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA de2009ngprogramevaluation
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for Delaware PSC Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Incident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 1#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 22009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2009 Natural Gas State Agency: Delaware Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 10/25/2010 - 10/29/2010 Agency Representative: Jerry Platt PHMSA Representative: Dino N. Rathod,P.E. Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Ms. Arnetta McRae, Chair Agency: Delaware Public Service Commission Address: 861 Silverlake Blvd City/State/Zip: Dover, DE 19904 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2009 (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 certification/agreement attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART F): 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 F, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A General Program Qualifications 26 25 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 24.5 21.5 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Incident Investigations 1.5 1.5 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 7 7 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 9.5 9 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 92.5 88 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 95.1 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 2#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 3PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 8 7 1 Did the state submit complete and accurate information on the attachments to its most current 60105(a) Certification/60106 (a) Agreement? (NOTE: PHMSA Representative to verify certification/agreement attachments by reviewing appropriate state documentation. Score a deficiency in any one area as "needs improvement". Attachment numbers appear in parenthesis) Previous Question A.1, Items a-h worth 1 point each Yes = 8 No = 0 Needs Minor Improvement = 3-7 Needs Major Improvement = 2 a. State Jurisdiction and agent status over gas facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Gas facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Gas pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the gas pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: PSC Certifcation Attach 5 indicated "No Probable Violations Found during CY 2009. However based on records review, it indicated that possibly one carry over from 2008, with compliance action being taken in 2009. PSC agreed to review and verify and provided supporting data/ additional details. PSC agreed to revise Attachment 5. Also Discussed with PSC need to recheck Attachments 2 and 5. Subsequently PSC indicated a minor error. R Schefgen's time as inspector 79% not 100% as indiated. That will result in "Time Charged" to pipeline Safety Program as 0.925 vs 1.14 as shown in Attachmnet 7 (page 18). PSC was advised to submit corrected mark-up copies to Zach and seek his concurrence for changes to FedStar. I re-emphasized PHMSA requirements for Accurate, Complete and Consistent data in Certification attachments. 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance with 60105(a) Certification/60106(a) Agreement requirements (fatality, injury requiring hospitalization, property damage exceeding $50,000 - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports)? (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC Inspection Procedures cover these requirements. 1 1 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety TQ seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if state requested seminar, but T&Q could not provide, indicate date of state request for seminar. Seminars must be held at least once every 3 calendar years.) (Chapter 8.5) Previous Question A.4 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: PSC hosted T&Q seminar MAy 21-22, 2009. 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Files are kept in a secure bldg and easily accessible. 1 1 5 Did state records and discussions with the state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? (Chapter 4.1, Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: During CY 2009, PSC Acting Prog Manager K Neilson provided continuity and guidance. PSC was in still in process of selecting a permanent Prog Mgr. 6 Did the state respond in writing within 60 days to the requested items in the Chairman's letter following the Region's last program evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: PSC Chair letter response dated 02/17/2010 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 3#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 47 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the 1 1 previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8/A.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: considerations. I discussed with PSC and reemphasized need to continue working with many stakeholders for possible enhancement of One Call Enforcement Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year TQ training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding TQ courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all TQ courses, but are in a program which will achieve the completion of all applicable courses within 3 years of taking first course (5 years to sucessfully complete), or if a waiver has been granted by the applicable Region Director for the state, please answer yes.) (Chapter 4.4) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 3 No = 0 3 3 SLR Notes: Bob Scaefgen- completed required T&Q courses. New Prog Mgr Jerry Platt to sign for TQ courses FY 2011. I requested an update from PSC for training courses (accepted, wait listed) 9 Brief Description of Non-TQ training Activities: Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: For Operators: For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 10 SLR Notes: Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q OQ courses and Computer Based Training (CBT) before conducting OQ Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.12 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 11 SLR Notes: Did the lead inspectors complete all required TQ Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 12 Was the ratio acceptable of Total inspection Person-days to Total Person-days charged to the program by state inspectors? (Region Director may modify points for just cause) (Chapter 4.3) Previous Question B.12 Yes = 5 No = 0 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 87.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.14 = 249.70 Ratio: A / B 87.00 / 249.70 = 0.35 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 0 SLR Notes: A= 87 B= (0..925) x 220= 223.4 A/B= 0.428 5 Numbers were revised by DE PSC Prog Mgr J Platt. Robert Schaefgens time was 79% and not 100% as indicted in Attach. 7. Based on recalculation as indicated, 5 point score is ok score 5 points. DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 4#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 513 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Info Only Info Only Question B.13 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Peder Hensen passed away in Dec 2009. Jerry Platt was selected as Program Manager in May 2010. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 25 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 5#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 6PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators including LNG) 6.5 5.5 (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes + Incorporate LNG Yes = 6.5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Standard Inspections (Including LNG) (Max points = 2) b IMP Inspections (Including DIMP) (Max points = .5) c OQ Inspections (Max points = .5) d Damage Prevention (Max points = .5) e On-Site Operator Training (Max points = .5) f Construction Inspections (Max points = .5) g Incident/Accident Investigations (Max points = 1) h Compliance Follow-up (Max points = 1) Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: Discussed DE PSC Inspection Procedures. PSC to revise and add detailed Enforcement and Compliance procedures. PSC also agreed to develop Civil Penalty matrix as a tool to help determine appropriate levels of penalties. 2 Did the written Procedures for selecting operators adequately address key concerns? (Chapter 5.1) Previous 2 2 Question B.2, items a-d are worth .5 point each Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b History of Operator/unit and/or location (including leakage , incident and compliance history) Yes No Needs Improvement c Type of activity being undertaken by operator (construction etc) Yes No Needs Improvement d For large operators, rotation of locations inspected Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: Inspection Performance 3 Did the state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in its written procedures? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: 2 2 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 0 SLR Notes: Discussed with PSC need for documenting reviews for inspection check lists and inpsection forms. dates and revisions should be clearly identified in each of these domcuments. Suggested that PSC may consider a method similar to PHMSA forms with all resvision information in a footer. PSC agreed to implement is ASAP in CY 2010. 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.6 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 NA Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 6#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 7NO SRC in CY 2009 7 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence .5 .5 of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC performs review of Cast Iron- exposed pipe procedures and records. PSC performed PSIR #16 (DP&E) and PSIR 23 (Chesapeake). He also reviewed DP&E procedures G9.01-2006, para. 4.4.3) and G9.14-2006, para. 3.3.3.2. Chesapeake removed all remaining CI during CY 2009. DP& E has about 107 miles of CI mains. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including 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) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 9 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) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 10 SLR Notes: 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? (NTSB) Previous Question B.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous 1 1 Question B.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Certification Attachment 5- shows 2009 one(1) correted. Subsequently PSC provided adequate documetation for proper resolution. Compliance letter dated 1-29-2009 and resolution to close it after remedial actions were done 12 Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a 1 .5 probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question D(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: PSC became 60105 (a) state in CY 2009. Discussed with PSC and suggested detailed procedures and a method to keep track of status of enforcement / Compliance activities. It should help to "alert" PSC when certain actions are due and be able to follow-thru for timely resolution and proper closure. 13 Does the state have written procedures to notify an operator when a noncompliance is identified as specified in the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D 1 1 (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Title 26 Public Utilites DE Administrative Code -PSC has 8001 Rules. Thes eoutline Rules to establish an intrastate gas pipeline safety Compliance Program. Discussed need for detailed procedures by DE PSC as part of Inspection Procedurs Manual. PSC will aslo review PHMSA's State Guideline Manual Dec 2009 or current revison,as necesary 14 Does the state have a written procedure for routinely reviewing the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(5)) Previous Question D(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 7#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 8SLR Notes: 15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question D(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC issued a Compliance letter in 1-29-2009 for a Carry Over violation discovred in 2008. 1 1 16 SLR Notes: Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that prompt corrective actions were taken by operators, within the time frames established by the procedures and compliance correspondence, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? Previous Question D(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 17 SLR Notes: If compliance could not be established by other means, did state pipeline safety program staff request formal action, such as a "Show Cause Hearing" to correct pipeline safety violations? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question 1 .5 D(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Discussed with PSC need to maintain pertinent details for resolution of probable violations. PSC agreed to review and revise Inspection Procedures Manual. 19 SLR Notes: Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 20 SLR Notes: Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 NA 22 SLR Notes: Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question D(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 23 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.) Previous Question D(2).3 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 NA Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 8#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 9Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 24 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 25 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 26 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 27 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Title 26 Public Utilites DE Administrative Code -PSC has 8001 Rules. Thes eoutline Rules to establish an intrastate gas pipeline safety Compliance Program. Discussed need for detailed procedures by DE PSC as part of Inspection Procedurs Manual. PSC will aslo review PHMSA's State Guideline Manual Dec 2009 or current revison,as necesary Total points scored for this section: 21.5 Total possible points for this section: 24.5 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 9#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 10PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question D(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question D(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: 4 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.) Previous Question D(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 10#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 11PART D - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question E.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 1 2 Are state personnel familiar with the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6 ? Appendix D) Previous Question E.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of incident notifications received? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009. PSC does keep records of incoming notifications and make appropriate decision 1 NA 4 If an onsite investigation of an incident was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information by other means to determine the facts and support the decision not to go on-site? Previous Question E.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009 1 NA 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? Previous Question E.5, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations and Document Review b. Contributing Factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009 2 NA Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any incident investigation(s)? Previous Question E.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009 1 NA 7 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 annual report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) (Chapter 6) Previous Question E.7/E.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009 .5 NA 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 11#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 12Total points scored for this section: 1.5 Total possible points for this section: 1.5 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 12#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 13PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: PSC reviewed DP&L directional drilling procedures to ensure that adequate steps are taken to minimize damage to underground facilities. These include minimum clearances and precuations when tool is pulled back. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? New 2008 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: out of affected facilities. Pipeline operators are part of One Call Notification system. One Call system provides uniquie number for each locate request and requires line locate, mark- 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to 2 2 its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: DE PSC encourages and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities. PSC also participated in USPCD Monthly meetings. PSC supported Damage Prevention ads on radio, 811 message on webpage and link to 822 website. 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? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: PSC receives damage data from both gas operators and performs review for trends and data analysis. At this point DE does not have any mandatory data submittal requirements for all stakeholders. 5 Did the state review operators' records of accidents and failures due to excavation damage to ensure causes of failure are addressed to minimize the possibility of recurrence as required by 192.617? Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2009. However, PSC does review reports of damages. 2 NA 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 13#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 14PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Chesapeake Utilities Corp Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Robert Schaefgen Location of Inspection: Middletown Date of Inspection: 10/26/2010 Name of PHMSA Representative: Dino N. Rathod Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC had informed Chesapeake Utilities and Reps were present at Middletown construction location and Dover office. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an acceptable inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Previous Question F.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC inspector used inspection forms to note his observations of varous field activities. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question F.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC inspector documented his observations of various activities. 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.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC inspector varied that operator contractor crew had maps of proposed construction, Infrared Thermometer. 1 1 6 What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) New 2008 Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: New plastic pipe main installation; Operator Qualification (OQ# 9) and Damage Prevention Procedures and selected records. He also reviewed Damage Prevention Data/ Graphs/ Charts. 7 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) New 2008, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) 2 2 SLR Notes: DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 14#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 15New construction Plastic pipe installation, observe directional drilling; Field verification of pipe fusion and Damage Prevention. 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question F.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: 9 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) Previous Question F.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC inspector conveyed his concerns for several items observed during this field visit. 1 1 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question F.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Three items were discussed as part of the exit interview. 1) Lack of available construction documents/ updated manuals at job site. These document were apprear to be out dated. 2) 8-inch HDPE crossing exist water main. PSC expressed concern with adeqaute cover and clearance with water pipe. 3) Asphalt spoils from pavement in trench. Must be stored away from trench and be hauled away for disposal. 11 What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector Info Only Info Only performed) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: OPerator: Chesapeake Utilities Corp. Contractor: Voshell Bros. Location: N Front St and Swain Ave in Middletown PSC Inspector: Robert Schaefgen PSC inspector used inspection form/ check list to note his field observations. He also verified One Call ticket validity, utility locate mark-outs. Contractor crew were in process of installing 8-inch HDPE Yellowstripe pipe 8300/PE 3408/4710. Estimated length 5800 ft and about 280 ft 6-inch. Contractor Crew also performed Hor Directinal Drilling. Test holes were done to observe exist water pipe. PSC inspector also observed butt fusion joint and performed field verification (OQ#9) Damage Prevention: PSC inspector reviewed data/ records and procedures. Chesapeake Utilities perform line locates using company persons. Public Awareness Program (PAP) details were discussed 12 SLR Notes: Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points 13 Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 15#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 16n. 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 F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 16#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 17PART G - PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan Points(MAX) Score Risk base Inspections - Targeting High Risk Areas 1 Does state have process to identify high risk inspection units? Yes = 1.5 No = 0 1.5 1.5 Risk Factors (criteria) to consider may include: Miles of HCA's, Geographic area, Population Density Length of time since last inspection History of Individual Operator units (leakage, incident and compliance history, etc.) Threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Other Outside Forces, Material or Welds, Equipment, Operations, Other) SLR Notes: PSC reviewed high risk inspection - Transmission lines --DP&L from Ridge Rd to Hay Road Power Plant (in higly populated area) and --Delaware Solid Waste Authority. In adiotn, PSC receives and reviews construction projects. 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC has units broken down per 2009 PHMSA's State Guideline Manual definitions. .5 0.5 3 Consideration of operators DIMP Plan? (if available and pending rulemaking) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 4 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: corrosion issues. PSC receives andreviews data from both LDCs, inspects construction (line replacement projects for CI and bare steel pipes) and reviews leak data and Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 5 Does state use data to analyze effectiveness of damage prevention efforts in the state? (DIRT or other data, etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC receives and reviews damage data and damage prevention goals. PSC Prog Mgr also reviews Monthly Pipe damage summary reports from USCPD and analyze effectiveness of their damage prevention effortsnad help target Public Awareness, Excavator Education/ training etc/ 6 Has state reviewed data on Operator Annual reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: DE reviews LDC annual reports for accuracy and consistency. .5 0.5 7 Has state analyzed annual report data for trends and operator issues? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: steel replacement activities. DE PSC analyzes LDC Annual reort data for possible trends and pipeline safety issues. Number ok leak by cause, amount of unaccounted gas and CI /bare 8 Has state reviewed data on Incident/Accident reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: DE PSC reviewed gas incident data in past andworked closely with PHMSA. For CY 2009, no reportable gas incident DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 17#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 189 Does state do evaluation of effectiveness of program based on data? (i.e. performance measures, trends, etc.) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: damage prevention program PSC has performed evaluation with consideration for: 1) Meet necessary inspection activities. 2) Minimize gas incidents or near misses. 3) promote good 10 Did the State input all operator qualification inspection results into web based database provided by PHMSA in a timely manner upon completion of OQ inspections? Previous Question B.15 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: For CY 2009 PSC performed OQ inspections- 6 OQ Plan Reviews; 5 OQ #9 field verification inspections and uploaded results in OQDB. 11 Did the State submit their replies into the Integrity Management Database (IMDB) in response to the Operators notifications for their integrity management program? Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC did not submit any reply into IMDB. .5 0 12 Have the IMP Federal Protocol forms been uploaded to the IMDB? Previous Question B.17 .5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC performed IMP inspections 2006-2008 and uploaded data in federal IMDB. However no IMP inspections were duefor CY 2009. 0.5 13 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Previous Question B.18 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSc has worked closely with both major LDCs. No issues were identified .5 0.5 14 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) database along with any changes made after original submission? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: DP&L submitted information into NPMS. .5 0.5 Accident/Incident Investigation Learning and Sharing Lessons Learned 15 Has state shared lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (i.e. NAPSR meetings and communications) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC shared information at NAPSR ER meeting and with other stakeholders .5 0.5 16 Does the State support data gathering efforts concerning accidents? (Frequency/Consequence/etc) .5 NA Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: No Reportable ga sincidnets in CY 2009. However, PSC would work closely with PHMSA. 17 SLR Notes: Does state have incident/accident criteria for conducting root cause analysis? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 18#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 1918 SLR Notes: Does state conduct root cause analysis on incidents/accidents in state? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only 19 SLR Notes: Has state participated on root cause analysis training? (can also be on wait list) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 PSC inspector R Schaefgen attended and participated during week of August 16, 2009. Transparency - Communication with Stakeholders 20 Other than pipeline safety seminar does State communicate with stakeholders? (Communicate program data, pub awareness, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: DE PSC website provides weblink to 811. PSC participates in monthly Damage Prevention meetings, including Public Awareness message thru Radio ads 21 Does state share enforcement data with public? (Website, newsletters, docket access, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: PE PSC webiste provides Operator related Docketed information- rate cases, Commission Orders; Also weblink to 811 . http://www.depsc.delaware.gov/naturalgas.shtml http;//call811.com/default.aspx 22 Part G: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9.5 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 19#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 20PART H - Miscellaneous Points(MAX) Score 1 What were the major accomplishments for the year being evaluated? (Describe the accomplishments, NAPSR Activities and Participation, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 1. DE PSC aquired 6015(a) Certification status. DE PSC was 60106 Agreement state for intrstate gas pipelines. 2 What legislative or program initiatives are taking place/planned in the state, past, present, and future? (Describe initiatives (i.e. damage prevention, jurisdiction/authority, compliance/administrative, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: As 60105 (a) state, DE is currently reviewing pertinent requiremets and intends to develop appropriate procedures for implementation 3 Any Risk Reduction Accomplishments/Projects? (i.e. Cast iron replacement projects,bare steel,third-party damage reductions, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: In CY 2009 Chesapeake Utilites eliminated all remaining cast iron pipe. Both gas operators also actively repalce bare steel pipes (mains+services) 4 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: DE PSC participated in NAPSR surveys. 5 Sharing Best Practices with Other States - (General Program) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: DE attended NAPSR ER meeting and shared pertinent details of pipeline safety program. 6 Part H: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 3 Total possible points for this section: 3 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 20#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 21PART I - Program Initiatives Points(MAX) Score Drug and Alcohol Testing (49 CFR Part 199) 1 Has the state verified that operators have drug and alcohol testing programs? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC has perofrmed inspections and verified D&A plans of two LDCs. 1 1 2 Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the drug and alcohol tests required by the operators program (random, post-incident, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC has perofrmed inspections and verified D&A plans of two LDCs .5 0.5 3 Is the state verifying that any positive tests are responded to in accordance with the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC has perofrmed inspections and verified D&A plans of two LDCs. .5 0.5 Qualification of Pipeline Personnel (49 CFR Part 192 Subpart N) 4 Has the state verified that operators have a written qualification program? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: CY 2009 DE PSc conducted 9 OQ inspections. 1 1 5 Has the state reviewed operator qualification programs for compliance with PHMSA rules and protocols? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: CY 2009 DE PSC conducted 9 OQ inspections. PSC used OQ protocols. .5 0.5 6 Is the state verifying that persons who perform covered tasks for the operator are qualified in accordance with the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: CY 2009 DE PSc conducted five (45) OQ field inspections. PSC used OQ protocols .5 0.5 7 Is the state verifying that persons who perform covered task for the operator are requalified at the intervals specified in the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: CY 2009 DE PSc conducted 9 OQ inspections. PSC used OQ protocols .5 0.5 Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management (49 CFR Part 192 Subpart O) 8 Has the state verified that all operators with transmission pipelines have either adopted an integrity management program (IMP), or have properly determined that one is not required? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: IMP. PSC verified that two operatros (DP&L and Delmarva Waste Authority) have pipelines subject to gas trasnsmision IMP rules. Both operators have adopted 9 Has the state verified that in determining whether a plan is required, the operator correctly calculated the potential impact radii and properly applied the definition of a high consequence area? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 21#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 22PSC performed IMP inspections previously (2006-2008) and reviewed IMP Plans of both operators. 10 Has the state reviewed operator IMPs for compliance with Subpart O? (In accordance with State Inspection plan) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC performed IMP inspections previously (2006-2008) and reviewed IMP Plans of both operators .5 0.5 11 SLR Notes: Is the state monitoring operator progress on the inspections, tests and remedial actions required by the operator's IMP, including that they are being done in the manner and schedule called for in its IMP? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 12 Is the state verifying that operators are periodically examining their transmission line routes for the appearance of new HCAs? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSc periodically verifies transmissionline of both opeprators for HCA related possible changes. .5 0.5 Public Awareness (49 CFR Section 192.616) 13 Has the state verified that each operator has developed a continuing public awareness program? (due date was 6/20/06 for most operators, 6/20/07 for certain very small operators,6/13/08 for master meters) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 14 Has the state reviewed the content of these programs for compliance with 192.616 (by participating in the Clearinghouse or by other means)? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC conducted public awareness (PA)inspection during CY 2009 .5 0.5 15 Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the public awareness activities called for in its program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PSC conducted PA inspection during CY 2009 .5 0.5 16 Is the state verifying that operators have evaluated their Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162? Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: PSC conducted PA inspection during CY 2009 Info Only Info Only 17 Part I: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 606861094 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 22#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.