Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA de2014ngprogramevaluation
2014 DE NG Program Evaluation - de2014ngprogramevaluation (Delaware; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA de2014ngprogramevaluation
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation for Delaware PSC 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: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 1#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 22014 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2014 Gas State Agency: Delaware Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 09/13/2015 - 09/18/2015 Agency Representative: Jerry Platt, Pipeline Safety Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume, State Liaison Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. Dallas Winslow, Chair Agency: Delaware Public Service Commission Address: 861 Silver Lake Blvd., Ste 100 City/State/Zip: Dover, Delaware 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 2014 (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 45 45 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 9 9 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 112 112 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 2#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: A1. Yes, Attachment 1 is accurate & is consistent with Attachment 3 & attachment 8 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A2. Yes. Attachment 2 agrees with in-house records of inspection days 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: A3. Yes. Attachment 3 is in agreement with Attachment 1 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: A4. Yes. The single incident was properly reported on Attachment 4. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A5. Yes. Attachment 5 agrees with in-house records of compliance actions. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A6. Yes. Records are a combination of electronic, email, and hard copy. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A7. Yes. Attachment 7 is consistent with internal records. Bob is fully qualified for all types of inspections. Jerry has completed the mandatory courses for Program Managers. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A8. Yes. Attachment 8 is correct and is consistent with Delaware law and PSC records. 1 1 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 1 1 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 3#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 4Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: state. A9. Yes. Attachment 10 addresses several actions and accomplishments: They were authorized for an additional FTE who was hired in January, 2015. There was an effort to identify all of the master meter owners and LPG owners throughout the 10 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A10. DPSC is still young having been certified in 2009, and is still developing their program. The current phase of the program is 'checking in detail' for Delaware specific regulations, specific search for elusive owners and operators, searching facilities to determine if they are jurisdictional, establishing more authority with certain operators, and trying to find a more effective path for issuing and collecting civil penalties for Damage Prevention violations. Of particular note, the successful effort to add a second inspector position to the Pipeline Safety Office was the major positive event of 2014. The 2013 year- end report needed some improvements and had some minor mistakes. The 2014 year-end report was updated and mistake free. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 4#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: B1. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, 'INSPECTION PROCEDURES' & Appendix C. 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: B2. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, 'INSPECTION PROCEDURES' & Appendix C. 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: B3. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, 'INSPECTION PROCEDURES' & Appendix C. 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: B4. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, 'INSPECTION PROCEDURES' & Appendix C. 1 1 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B5. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, page 6, paragraph 1. 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: B6. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, page 5, last paragraph. 1 1 DUNS: 606861094 2014 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 Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 5#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: B7. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, pages 2 & 3, and appendix B. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: B8. Yes. DPSC's commitment to continuing improvement has included a review of historic inspection records, development of a systematic approach to insure inspections are in cycle, and a spreadsheet to track those records. The review & revision of the Pipeline Safety Procedures prompted the upgrade of the spreadsheet which then caused an iterative cycle to improve and clarify the procedures themselves. It is expected that this iterative cycle will continue. Another avenue for improvement has been the review of the example Program Procedures as found in the State Guidelines. Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 6#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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): 129.99 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.96 = 211.20 Ratio: A / B 129.99 / 211.20 = 0.62 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: C1. Yes 129.99 IPD, 0.96 IPY, 129.99/(.96*220)=0.6155, >.38, Okay 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: C2. Yes, Robert is qualified for Standard, OQ, IMP, & has Root Cause Training. He is also maintaining HAZWOPER Certification. Jerry completed his required 7 Classes on 9/30/14. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: C3. Yes. Jerry has completed his 5th year as Program Manager and has completed his 7 required courses at TQ. 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct 2 2 or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C4. Yes, the Chairman letter was mailed 12/9/14 and the response was mailed 1/6/15. All 4 items of concern were addressed. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C5. Yes, in 2009 and on Dec 11, 2012. Tentative schedule for the next one is Nov 10, 2015. 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 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation C6. Yes (mostly). DIMP is done for all LDC, but 1 MM & 2 LPG operators were not finished in 2014 as they require Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 7#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 8extensive help to come into compliance. PAPEI are done, but 1 MM is requiring extensive help to come into compliance. TIMP is done. OQ is current with 1 MM & 1 LPG operator needing extensive help. Standard inspections are current. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C7. Yes. The files were in order. 2 2 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C8. Yes. Federal inspection form-# 2 Part 192.489 (b); pp. 19. 1 1 9 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) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C9. Yes. Federal inspection form- #2; pg 4 Part 192.613(a). 1 1 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 Evaluator Notes: C10. Yes. Federal inspection form- #2; pg 5 Part 192.615 (a) (7). 1 1 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: C11. Yes. Federal inspection form- #2; pg 4 & 5 Part 192.614 (c). 1 1 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: C12. Yes. PSC reviews this data on a regular basis for each LDC, Transmission, & LNG Operator and analyzes. Also the annual reports on mechanical fitting failures. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Evaluator Notes: Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 C13. Yes. The OQ, DIMP, & TIMP information has been placed into the databases. 2 2 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 8#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 914 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: inspections. C14. Yes. Both Gas Transmission operators have their transmission lines checked against NPMS during standard 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: C15. Yes, the D&A Long form is used for the initial review of an operator and whenever a major revision to the plan is made. The Short form (Form 13) is used at the other times. 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: C16. Yes, OQ Protocol 9 inspections are part of almost every Standard Inspection. Full OQ re-inspections are current within the 5 year inspection interval. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 2 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: C17. Yes, the transmission operators are being spot checked to an IMP protocol during most standard inspections. Full TIMP re-inspections were conducted in 2014. 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 be complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C18. Yes. 1st round DIMP inspections were done by year end 2014. 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 have been completed by December 2013 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C19. Yes. The PAPEI inspections are current. 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: C20. Yes, for Public-Dockets & Commission Mtg Agendas; for Operators- inspections, training, emails, phone, letters, USPCD mtgs, plus Dockets & Commission agendas. DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 9#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 1021 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: C21. NA. no SRC since before 2010. 1 NA 22 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? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: C22. Yes. The LDCs were contacted and both provided meaningful information. 1 1 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: C23. Yes. DPSC actively participated in NAPSR and PHMSA survey/information requests. 1 1 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate.(New Question for CY2013, no points until CY2015 evaluation conducted in CY2016) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C24. DE has not issued any waivers. 0 0 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? (New Question for CY2014, no points first year) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: 0 0 C25. DPSC did NOT have anyone attend the 2014 NAPSR Mtg. The Program Manager attended the 2015 NAPSR Mtg. 26 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site. (question will be rolled up and included as part of Question C12 on future evaluations) http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C26. Yes. The data is informative but is not enough to drive any deliberative processes yet. 0 0 27 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C27. The DPSC has set an aggressive agenda to inspect every Inspection Unit in some fashion on an annual basis. An item of success is that DPSC has added a 2nd inspector to its staff. This strengthens the program by allowing for succession planning as well as allowing the program to meet the requirements of (D)IMP, OQ, and PAPEI inspections while increasing its awareness of field construction activities at the same time. Total points scored for this section: 45 Total possible points for this section: 45 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 10#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 11PART 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: D1. Yes. DE PSC Inspection Procedures Manual- pg 8. 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. Were probable violations documented? Yes No Needs Improvement c. Were probable violations resolved? Yes No Needs Improvement d. Was the progress of probable violations routinely reviewed? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: D2. Yes. DE PSC Inspection Procedures Manual- pg 8 & 9-. The 2 compliance actions show to be following the procedures. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: D3. Yes. All PV were handled in a timely manner. The fines have been received. 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: D4. Yes, See DE State Administrative Code Title 26 Public Services- 8000 Gas Regulations, Para# 6. 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: D5. Yes, the Program Manager is familiar with the Administrative Code, and is demonstrating the abilities to get Civil Penalties assessed when circumstances require them. He continues to maintain a database of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 1 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: D6. Yes. DE issued and received $13,900 for violations during 2014. Starting in 2013 most violations received de- minimus fines of $200-$3000. The database of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is an integral part of the informal fining policy. 7 General Comments: DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 11#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 12Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: D7. . State Regulations include procedures for handling probable violations and civil penalties. The DE PSC has demonstrated its use of the NOPV to get operators to correct the more minor violations. DE PSC also recognizes the ability to assess civil penalties as appropriate and how to convince operators to perform as required, given the possibility of civil penalties. Most operators, especially the LDC's, have demonstrated their awareness of the possibility of civil penalties by being very proactive in meeting all requirements of the Regulations. DE PSC responded to PHMSA's pointed suggestion and continues to issue de-minimus civil penalties for most violations in 2014. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 12#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 13PART 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: E1. Yes. DE PSC Pipeline Safety Program Procedures, page 7. 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: E2. Yes, DE PSC is aware of the NTSB-PHMSA MOU and has an active partnership with PHMSA-ER. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 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: E3. Yes. A mechanism is in place to electronically and telephonically receive required information; however the incident in 2014 was investigated on-site. 4 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: E4. Yes. The incident file is complete. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident 1 NA investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: E5. NA. No violations were found. An old man drive his own car through his own gas meter and into his own house and caused his own fire. The LDC was following industry best practice, there was nothing more they could reasonably do to prevent this accident. 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: E6. NA. The ER made no such request. DE PSC is fully prepared to coordinate with the ER 1 NA 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) 1 1 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 13#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 14Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: E7. Yes. DE PSC shares lessons learned in the ER NAPSR Mtgs. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: E8. Delaware suffered its first significant incident since 2010 in December of 2014. DPSC responded to the incident and will continue to work with operators and the public to keep incidents minimized. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 14#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 15PART F - Damage Prevention 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? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 F1. Yes. PSC reviews Directional Procedures on an annual basis as part of the O&M review of both gas operators. 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: F2. Yes. DE PSC reviews Damage Prevention Procedures on an annual basis as part of the O&M review of both gas operators. Gas operators are members of the One Call system. 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: F3. Yes. DE PSC staff actively participates in Damage Prevention activities and attends meetings. PSC also prepares targeted Radio and web page announcements. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated 2 2 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: F4. Yes. In DE, USPCD is a central clearing house for collection of damage data and locate requests. USPCD provides data to PSC on a monthly basis. PSC reviews and analyzes it for possible trends. 5 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: F5. The Inspector annually questions the two LDC's with regards to Damage Prevention. In addition, the Program Manager has regular contact with both LDC's and other stakeholders through attendance at monthly USPCD Meetings. DE PSC has used the services of a marketing firm to target appropriate audiences in their One-Call radio ads, and, in 2014, initiated internet ads. DE enjoys a very low line hit per 1000 locate ratio, and DPSC credits the ads to be helpful in this effort. Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 15#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 16PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Delmarva Power & Light, opid 3240 Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Bob Schaefgen Location of Inspection: 108 Kirkland, Wilmington, DE 19807 & 2404 Thomas Lane, Brandon, DE Date of Inspection: 9/16/2015 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Evaluator Notes: G1. Delmarva Power & Light, opid 3240 Bob Schaefgen 108 Kirkland, Wilmington, DE 19807 & 2404 Thomas Lane, Brandon, DE. Both are construction sites for new pipe; and also at the main Delmarva office in Wilmington, DE. 9/16/15 Patrick Gaume 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: G2. Yes. They were notified and had several employees participate at the Main Office and at both sites. 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: G3. Yes. DPSC has a very detailed 'Plastic Pipeline Construction Inspection' form. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G4. Yes. The forms were filled out at both locations. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection 1 1 to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G5. Yes. Every piece of needed equipment was present at both sites for the work that was planned that day, plus for abnormal and reasonable emergency events. 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: G6. Yes. Procedures for pipe joining, Records for the One-Call mark-outs, and Field inspection of the job site. 2 2 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 16#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 177 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G7. Yes. Bob demonstrated professional knowledge, skills, and abilities at these job sites. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the 1 1 interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G8. Yes. Bob made exit comments at both locations. The Kirkland job site was issue free, but the Thomas Lane job site was found to be installing the 2" main with only 21" of cover where the minimum depth of cover is 24" and they had hit a fiber optics line that had NOT been marked. Verizon had cleared the One-Call ticket without marking their facilities. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the 1 1 inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G9. Yes. Bob made exit comments at both locations. The Kirkland job site was issue free, but the Thomas Lane job site was found to be installing the 2" main with only 21" of cover where the minimum depth of cover is 24" and they had hit a fiber optics line that had NOT been marked. Verizon had cleared the One-Call ticket without marking their facilities. 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 17#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 18B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: G10. Bob conducted a professional inspection at both job sites. The paperwork was complete. They were good solid Field inspections. also checked trenching, depth of burial, heater temp at 500 deg +-10, confirmed specs on plastic pipe, full butt fusion procedure, tracer wire, verified One-Call information & Verizon's clearing of the ticket without marking their fiber optic cable. l,m,q,s,&w. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 18#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 19PART 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: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 4 Were probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 19#
DE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 20PART 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 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: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 606861094 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Delaware Delaware PSC, Page: 20#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.