Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA pr-2018-gas-program-evaluation
2018 PR NG Program Evaluation - pr-2018-gas-program-evaluation (Puerto Rico; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA pr-2018-gas-program-evaluation
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation for PR Department of Transp. and Public Works 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: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 1#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 22018 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2018 Gas State Agency: Puerto Rico Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 05/20/2019 - 05/24/2019 Agency Representative: Alice Velazquez, Pipeline Safety Program Manager Zuleika Ruiz, Inspector PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, US DOT/PHMSA State Evaluator Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Carlos M. Contreras, Secretary Agency: Department of Transportation and Public Works Address: P. O. Box 41269, Minillas Station City/State/Zip: San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940-1269 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 2018 (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. 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 36 29.5 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 4 4 F Damage Prevention 6 6 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 96 89.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 93.2 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 2#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A review of Attachment 1 - Stats on Operators found the information correct. Jurisdictional authority is over LPG and Intrastate operators. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: A review of records and files found information on Attachment 2- State Inspection Activity was correct. The number of inspections performed in CY2018 (63) was less than in CY2017 (86) and below the required inspection days listed in SICT for 2018. Improvement is needed in meeting the required SICT inspection days. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A reviewed of Attachment 3 - List of Operators found the information correct. Information on Attachment 1 pertaining to operators and inspection units match and was verified. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No incidents occurred in CY2018. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed and verified violations found, corrected and carry over for calendar year 2018. The number of carryovers is less than in previous year. No civil penalties were assessed or collected. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, files were accessible and available. 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: Yes, performed a review of courses completed by everyone in PHMSA Blackboard and found Alice Velazquez has completed all six training courses for gas inspector qualification. Zuleika Ruiz started training in CY2016 and has completed four of the six required courses. She needs to complete two courses PL1310 & PL3256 before December 31, 2019 to meet the gas inspector qualifications requirement. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 3#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 4Evaluator Notes: Information listed in Attachment 8 is correct. They have automatic adoption of pipeline safety regulations. However, civil penalty amount is $10,000 per day up to $250,000. These amounts do not meet PHMSA's policy requirements of $100,000/ $1 M. 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed Attachment 10 and found no areas of concern. 1 1 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 4#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 2 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: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures found this item listed under "Activities, During and After An Inspection". However, additional information should be added to help inform the inspector about items to review. This information is available in Appendix S of the guidelines document. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 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: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures dated January 25, 2018 found this item listed under types of inspections (d) page 10. 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 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: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures found this item listed under types of inspections (e) page 10. 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 1 1 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: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures found this item listed under types of inspections (g) page 11. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as 1 1 needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures found this item listed under types of inspections (c) page 10 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 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: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures found this item listed under types of inspections (b) page 9. DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 5#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 67 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 c. 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: A review of Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PR DTOPW) Pipeline Safety Administrative Procedures found these items listed under "Quantity of Inspections, Sections A thru I. Inspection units were found broken down appropriately and reviewed annually during the inspection visits. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 6#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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 5 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 63.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.09 = 239.80 Ratio: A / B 63.00 / 239.80 = 0.26 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 0 Evaluator Notes: A.Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2)= 63 B.Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the program(220*Number of Inspection person years(Attachment 7)=239.8 Formula:- Ratio = A/B = 63/239.8 = 0.26 Rule:- (If Ratio >=.38 then points = 5 else Points = 0.) Thus Points = 0 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 4 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: a. Samuel Rodriguez had completed the OQ required course and was the lead inspector. b. Samuel Rodriguez had completed the DIMP required course and was the lead inspector. c. No one has completed the Root Cause Training course. Samuel Rodriquez was scheduled to attend in CY 2018 but left the agency before the end of the year. d. No outside training courses were completed during this review period. e. Samuel Rodriguez and Alice Velazquez have completed all six-required courses and met the minimum qualification to be the lead on standard inspections. Zuleika Ruiz has completed four of the six required courses. 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: Yes, Samuel Rodriguez was appointed the program manager in 2015 and successfully completed the six required training courses at TQ. However, he left as program manager in August 2018. Alice Velazquez assumed the program manager's responsibilities in September 2018. Ms. Velazquez has over 9 years of experience in pipeline safety regulations. 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: on September 24, 2018. Yes, an extension of time was granted to response to the Chairman's letter by Zach Barrett. The response letter was received DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 7#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 85 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 1 1 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The last safety seminar was conducted in April 2016. Leticia Santos with PHMSA TQ will be participating in a training seminar to all operators on June 25-26, 2019 in San Juan, PR. 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: In accordance to their inspection procedures all inspection units will be annually reviewed. In a review of files all inspections units were inspected in CY2018. No issues of concern. 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: Yes, they use the federal PHMSA inspection forms. 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: NA. No cast iron in Puerto Rico. 1 NA 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: NA. No cast iron in Puerto Rico. 1 NA 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: Yes, this item is reviewed during the standard inspection form used by the inspector. 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: Yes, they use the PHMSA inspection form and this item is checked. 1 1 12 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation 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 Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 8#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 9Evaluator Notes: Yes, the Program Manager along with the inspector review annual reports submitted by the operators as they are received at their office. A review of files found annual reports were reviewed and information about the loss of gas and other information was being tabulated. 13 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item is reviewed and listed on the PHMSA inspection form. 1 1 14 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 2 NA 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: No Drug & Alcohol inspections were conducted in CY2018 due to the inspection schedule cycle. These inspections are scheduled to be performed next year in accordance to their written procedures. 15 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 2 NA 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: No OQ inspections were conducted in CY2018 due to the inspection schedule cycle. These inspections are scheduled to be performed next year in accordance to their written procedures. 16 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 NA 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). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually? Are replies to Operator IM notifications addressed? (formerly part of Question C-13)). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No IMP inspections were conducted in CY2018 due to the inspection schedule cycle. These inspections are scheduled to be performed next year in accordance to their written procedures. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? 2 NA 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). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No DIMP inspections were conducted in CY2018 due to the inspection schedule cycle. These inspections are scheduled to be performed next year in accordance to their written procedures. 18 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being 2 NA followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 192.616 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No Public Awareness inspections were conducted in CY2018 due to the inspection schedule cycle. These inspections are scheduled to be performed next year in accordance to their written procedures. DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 9#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 1019 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 0.5 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The Program Manager previously submitted a request to their agency's IT department to include this information on their web site last year. However, the information has not been completed by the IT department and is not posted. Improvement is needed to complete and meet this requirement. 20 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: N/A. No safety related conditions have occurred in the last three years. 1 NA 21 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: Yes, this item is listed and reviewed during the standard inspection with the operator. 1 1 22 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or 1 1 PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Robert Clarillos confirmed Samuel Rodriquez participation in surveys from NAPSR that occurred in CY2018. 23 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: No waivers/special permits have been issued. 1 1 24 Did the state attend the NAPSR National Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Alice Velazquez and Samuel Rodriquez attended the NAPSR National meeting. 1 1 25 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Discussion with Alice Velazquez about the damages per 1,000 locate tickets and improvements in monitoring operators compliance with state damage prevention laws were reviewed. Alice is familiar with PHMSA metrics site and routinely reviews the information on PR status. 26 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) Has the State updated SICT data? 1 1 Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 10#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 11No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: A review of the SICT program and input into the spreadsheet was reviewed with Program Manager. She understands the SICT number for the 2019 Gas inspection days to be 34. 27 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Program Manager is not aware of pipeline flow reversals, product changes, or conversion to service in the state. 28 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: review. Info Only Info Only A loss points occurred on questions C.1, C.2 & C.19 resulting in total loss of six and one half points in this section of the Total points scored for this section: 29.5 Total possible points for this section: 36 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 11#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. This information is listed in PR DTOPW Administrative Procedures under the section entitled, Notification of a Probable Violation/Warning Letter. b. This information is implied but reference in the Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program. Improvement is needed to include this information in the written procedures. c. Again, this information is referenced in Appendix S and should be included in the written procedures. Improvement is needed. 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? (Incident Investigations do not need to meet 30/90 day requirement) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Document probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement c. Resolve probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement e. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility inspected outlining any concerns; and Yes No Needs Improvement f. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. This information is listed in PR DTOPW Administrative Procedures under the section entitled, Notification of a Probable Violation/Warning Letter. b. This information is implied by reference to Appendix S of the Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program. Improvement is needed. c. & d. Written procedures were provided by reference to Appendix S and should be included in the written procedures document. Improvement is needed. e. & f. Information is listed in procedure manual under Action When Probable Violations are identified. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, a review of files and inspection reports found thirteen compliance actions were issued in CY2018. The compliance actions were against Del Gas, EcoElectrica, Empresas Gas, Liquilux Gas, San Juan Gas, Santa Juanita Gas & Tropigas de Puerto Rico. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show 2 2 cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the operators were given an opportunity to meet with staff members to discuss the probable violation and determine a plan of action. DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 12#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 135 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: Yes, the program manager is familiar with imposing civil penalties. However, in the last four years the program manager has not levied a civil penalty. 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: The pipeline safety program was transferred to the Department of Transportation and Public Works in CY2015, DTOPW has not had an opportunity to site probable violations that would warrant a civil penalty. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 13#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ 2 2 accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, information is listed in PR DTOPW Administrative Procedures under sub-title, Accident Investigation and reference is provided to Appendix S of the Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program. Improvement is needed to include the information into PR TOPW written procedures. 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: Yes, notification of incidents to be reported by the operator to PR DOTPW is provided in a mail out to the operators. Information on MOU and Federal/State incidents is included in the Administrative Procedure document. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No incidents were reported in CY2018. 1 NA 4 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 NA 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: No incidents were reported in CY2018. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No incidents were reported in CY2018. 1 NA 6 Did the state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking 1 NA appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No incidents were reported in CY2018. However, program manager is familiar with notification to PHMSA Region and AID offices on follow-up action related to incidents. 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 NA Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 14#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 15Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No incidents were reported in CY2018. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 15#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 16PART 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: Their operators do not use directional drilling or boring in the construction of new or renewed lines. 2 NA 2 Did the state inspector verify pipeline operators are following their written 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: Yes, this is reviewed during the standard inspection with the operator to insure it is listed. 2 2 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: Yes, PR DTOPW Excavation/ Demolition Center continue to have several meetings with stakeholder groups promoting best practices for reducing damages. The program manager attends and participates in the meetings. 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: Yes, this information is collected and reviewed by PR DTOPW Excavation/ Demolition Center. CY 2018 found only 150 hits occurred during the year. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in a review of this section. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 16#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Del Gas Corporation Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Zuleika Ruiz, Inspector Location of Inspection: San Juan, Puerto Date of Inspection: May 5, 2019 Name of PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, PHMSA State Liaision Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only This was a standard inspection of the inspection unit located at Lot 231552 Avenida Juan Ponce de Le?n, San Juan. PR. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Zuleika Ruiz contacted Del Gas Corporation representative on May 13th pertaining to the scheduled inspection. 3 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector used PHMSA Federal Standard inspection form. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, observed Zuleyka Ruiz taking notes on the different components reviewed at the tank location and service lines running to each booth location. Excellent note taking and pictures were taken. 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes. Del Gas personnel provided their operations and maintenance manual and assorted tools to check each individual meter. 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: Yes, a review of operator's written procedure manual and records were conducted at the site. 2 2 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 17#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 187 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: Zuleika Ruiz has completed all but two TQ courses. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, at the site an exit interview was conducted will all representatives. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No violations were noted or found. 1 1 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance Info Only Info Only DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 18#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 19E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Zuleika Ruiz conducted a professional and through review of the operator's facilities. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 19#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 20PART 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: NA Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 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: NA 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NA Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 20#
PR NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 21PART 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 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: NA 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: NA Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: NA 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NA Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 180536567 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Puerto Rico PR Department of Transp. and Public Works, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.