Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA pa-2024-gas-program-evaluation
2024 PA NG Program Evaluation - pa-2024-gas-program-evaluation (Pennsylvania; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA pa-2024-gas-program-evaluation
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation for PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative, Dates and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- State Qualifications D -- Program Performance E -- Field Inspections F -- Damage prevention and Annual report analysis UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 1#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 22024 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2024 Gas State Agency: Pennsylvania Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 05/12/2025 - 05/16/2025 Agency Representative: Robert Horensky, Fixed Utility Valuation Manager PHMSA Representative: David Appelbaum Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. Stephen DeFrank, Chairman Agency: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Address: 400 North Street City/State/Zip: Harrisburg, PA 17120 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Evaluator Guidance for conducting state pipeline safety program evaluations. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2024 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). 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 than the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the appropriate notes/comments section. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and they OBJECTIVELY reflect the state's program performance for the question being evaluated. Increasing emphasis is being placed on how the state pipeline safety programs conduct and execute their pipeline safety responsibilities (their 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. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 0 0 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C State Qualifications 10 10 D Program Performance 50 50 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 10 10 TOTALS 100 100 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 2#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? (*items not scored on progress report) Info Only = No Points a. Stats On Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 b. State Inspection Activity Data - Progress Report Attachment 2 c. List of Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 3* d. Incidents/Accidents Data - Progress Report Attachment 4* e. Stats of Compliance Actions Data - Progress Report Attachment 5* f. List of Records Kept Data - Progress Report Attachment 6 * g. Staff and TQ Training Data - Progress Report Attachment 7 h. Compliance with Federal Regulations Data - Progress Report Attachment 8 i. Performance and Damage Prevention Question Data - Progress Report Attachment 10* Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the Progress Report appear to be compliant. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 3#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 4PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities for each of the following inspection types: Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard Inspections, which include Drug/Alcohol, CRM and Public Awareness Effectiveness Inspections b. TIMP and DIMP Inspections (reviewing largest operator(s) plans annually) c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) g. LNG Inspections Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 5 5 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements and time frames established in its procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Length of time since last inspection b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Centers, etc.) e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 4 4 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 3 3 4 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/accident? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Mechanism to receive, record, and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports b. If onsite investigation was not made, do procedures require on-call staff to obtain sufficient information to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on-site. Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 3 3 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 4#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 55 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 5#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 6PART C - State Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled training requirements? (See Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead b. Completion of Required DIMP/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Completion of Required LNG Training before conducting inspection as lead d. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager e. Note any outside training completed f. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 5 5 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 5 5 3 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 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 6#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 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 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 5 5 2 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. Do inspection records indicate that adequate reviews of procedures, records and field activities, including notes and the appropriate level of inspection person-days for each inspection, were performed? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 10 10 3 Is state verifying monitoring (Protocol 9/Form15) of operators OQ programs? This should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals established in the operator's plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 2 2 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP and DIMP)? This should include a review of plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operator's plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subparts O and P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the implementation plans of the state's large/largest operators(s) being reviewed annually to ensure they are completing full cycle of the IMP process? b. Are states verifying with operators any plastic pipe and components that have shown a record of defects/leaks and mitigating those through DIMP plan? c. Are the states verifying operators are including low pressure distribution systems in their threat analysis? Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 7#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 85 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA that have been deemed acceptable response based on PHMSA reviewing these items during the evaluation process): Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken; b. 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); c. 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; d. 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; e. 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; f. Operator procedures for considering low pressure distribution systems in threat analysis? g. Operator compliance with state and federal regulations for regulators located inside buildings? Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 2 2 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 1 1 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? b. Were probable violations documented properly? c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations e. Did state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? f. Can state demonstrate fining authority for pipeline safety violations? g. Does Program Manager review, approve and monitor all compliance actions? (note: Program Manager or Senior Official should sign any NOPV or related enforcement action) h. Did state compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing, if necessary. i. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator outlining any concerns j. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. (Incident investigations do not need to meet 30/90-day requirement) Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 10 10 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 8#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 98 (Incident Investigations) Were all federally reportable incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? 10 10 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 9 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 = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, scheduled again for Sept 2025 Info Only Info Only 11 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, no issues Info Only Info Only 12 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, websites and other media 1 1 13 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 1 1 14 Was the State responsive to: UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 9#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 10Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; and b. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 15 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. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 1 1 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, no issues Info Only Info Only 17 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT). Has the state updated SICT data? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the question appear to be satisfactory - full credit. 3 3 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Done Info Only Info Only 19 Did the state encourage and promote operator implementation of Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), or API RP 1173? This holistic approach to improving pipeline safety includes the identification, prevention and remediation of safety hazards. Info Only = No Points a. https://pipelinesms.org/ b. Reference AGA recommendation to members May 20, 2019 Evaluator Notes: Yes, no issues Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 10#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 11PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the comments box below) Info Only = No Points a. What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) b. When was the unit inspected last? c. Was pipeline operator or representative present during inspection? d. Effort should be made to observe newest state inspector with least experience Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: for details. On 4/22, we did a post-locate inspection of PECO, and on 4/23, the same inspection on UGI. See below additional comments 2 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: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. 2 2 3 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the inspection 10 10 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Procedures (were the inspector's questions of the operator adequate to determine compliance?) b. Records (did the inspector adequately review trends and ask in-depth questions?) c. Field Activities/Facilities (did inspector ensure that procedures were being followed, including ensuring that properly calibrated equipment was used and OQ's were acceptable?) d. Other (please comment) e. Was the inspection of adequate length to properly perform the inspection? Evaluator Notes: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. 4 From your observation 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: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. 2 2 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. 1 1 6 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Info Only Info Only UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 11#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 12Evaluator Notes: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. 7 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: On 4/22/2025: Met with PECO Damage Prevention personnel at PECO's Plymouth Meeting Service Building (680 W Ridge Pike, Plymouth Meeting PA). Reviewed PECO's damage prevention and locating procedures. Reviewed excavation damage data and one call tickets. Selected tickets for verification in field. Proceeded to begin One Call Locate Verification in field. First stop was 631 Colonial Dr, Horsham. This ticket was responded to as "Conflict ? direct contact to follow" on April 14th. The response due date was April 14th. It was observed that work had already been completed and that the ticket had never been marked out. Second ticket was on 615 Colonial Dr, Horsham. This ticket was marked, but was missing facility identifier information. (This ticket was from a different locator). Proceeded to look further into tickets marked out by the locator from the first visited ticket. (Locator "CS"). Third visited location was 1581 Fort Washington Ave, Upper Dublin. This was an elementary school. This was a past due ticket and was not marked. USIC Locator present during the inspection closed this ticket out, as it was clear with no facilities present. Locator CS had two other past due tickets ? one located at 1204 Cedar Rd, and another located at Welsh Rd & Spring Hill Dr. The fourth visited location was at the intersection of Tannerie Run Rd and Russel Pl in Upper Dublin. For this one call ticket, house #3 and #22 were supposed to be marked. Facilities in front of house #3 were not marked. Facilities in front of house #22 were marked out in yellow paint only (no yellow flags in the grass). An offset mark was made in the roadway but did not specify how far back the facility was. A separate offset mark was observed one house over at house #19, but there were no facilities marked out in the footway. At the intersection of Tannerie Run Rd and Russel Pl, markings for a separate one call ticket were found to have been inaccurately placed and had to be corrected by PECO Damage Prevention personnel. At this point the inspection was concluded, and a meeting was held at the Plymouth Meeting building to conduct an exit interview. PA PUC will be issuing a non-compliance letter. On 4/23/2025: we reviewed UGI's damage prevention procedures. During a review of the procedures, a discrepancy was noticed on UGI's annual report regarding damages and then also total leaks. UGI acknowledged the discrepancy and said there would be a supplemental submission. We also asked about the 28 damages without a root cause on their annual report. We had UGI Lehigh pull all one calls from April 5th through the 18th. There were a total of 2356 tickets called in. We asked UGI to filter the tickets with 1847 of them being routine. Further filtering was completed to Bethlehem and Hanover Townships. At random we picked 8 tickets, but then followed up on 4 of them in the field. Ticket 20251011803 was a ticket in which there was a damage. UGI got a pass on this one as there were sewer contractors working in the same area as We needed to verify marks. Tickets 20251081807 and 20251081804 were the 1400 and 1500 blocks of Easton Ave. These tickets were for concrete restoration. 9 specific addresses were called out as needing to be marked. UGI marked these tickets as field marked, however while verifying in the field, it was apparent that UGI procedures were not followed and the locations were not marked. The last ticket reviewed was 20251073452. This ticket was clear as there were no facilities in the area. An OQ9 is also being completed on the locator in which did not mark correctly and the supervisor tasked with helping us today. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 12#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 13PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 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: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. See general comments in Section E for additional details that further demonstrated compliance with this section. 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 2 2 determining root causes and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence? (192.617) Has the state verified that the operators have appropriately identified excavators who have repeatedly violated one-call laws and damaged their facilities. Have the operators taken steps to mitigate that risks? (192.1007) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. See general comments in Section E for additional details that further demonstrated compliance with this section. 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation 4 4 Damage? Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. See general comments in Section E for additional details that further demonstrated compliance with this section. 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. What stakeholder group is causing the highest number of damages to the pipelines? Operator, contractor, locating company or public. b. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to stakeholders causing the most damages? c. Has the state evaluated which of the following best describes the reason for the excavation damages; i.e., operator or contractor not following written procedures, failure to maintain marks, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools were required, failure to test-hole (pot hole), improper backfilling practices, failure to maintain clearance or insufficient excavation practices. d. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to address the causes of excavation damages? Evaluator Notes: UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 13#
PA NG Program Evaluation, 2024, page 14All aspects of this question appeared satisfactory. See general comments in Section E for additional details that further demonstrated compliance with this section. 5 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 UEI: NAWLVXNAEPB3 2024 Gas State Program Evaluation Pennsylvania PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Page: 14#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.