Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA vt-2023-gas-program-evaluation
2023 VT NG Program Evaluation - vt-2023-gas-program-evaluation (Vermont; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA vt-2023-gas-program-evaluation
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation for VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 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 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 1#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 22023 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2023 Gas State Agency: Vermont Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/22/2024 - 07/26/2024 Agency Representative: Mr. Bill Jordan, Director of Engineering Mr. Matt Hecklinger, Gas Engineer Ms. Lindsey Wells, Administrative Service Coordinator PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, PHMSA State Liaison Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Ms. June Tierney, Commissioner Agency: Vermont Public Service Commission Address: 112 State Street City/State/Zip: Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No 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 2023 (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 49 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 10 10 TOTALS 100 99 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.0 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 2#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, 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 Info Only Info Only 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: a. Reviewed and found data correct. b. Reviewed and found data correct. c. Reviewed and found data correct and matched PHMSA Portal. d. Verification of the one incident found it listed in PHMSA Portal. e. Number of violations to be corrected at end of year is incorrect. The correct number is 165. This needs to be corrected. f. No issues g. Listing Director of Engineering in Inspector/Investigator category is incorrect unless % of time is provided. This item needs to be corrected. h. No issues. i. No issues. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 3#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 4PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities 5 5 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: Reviewed Vermont Public Service Commission Gas Pipeline Safety Inspection Procedures (GPS IP) Revised 2023 document. Pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities were found on pages 8-11. 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: Items a thru e were located on GPS IP pages 8-9. f. Satisfactory. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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: a. thru c. These items are located on page 13 of GPS IP b. This item is located on pages 13-14. c. Thie item is located on page 14. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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 3 3 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 4#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 5b. 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: a & b. These items are located on pages 15-20 of GPS IP. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred on this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 5#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, 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: a. Yes Program Manager and inspector have completed all courses to meet the requirements. b. Satisfactory c. Satisfactory d. Program Manager has completed the root cause training course. e. No outside training courses were attended in this review period. f. Satisfactory. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 5 5 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate 5 5 adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: Bill Jordon has been the Program Manager for five years. He demonstrated a working knowledge of the program and guidelines. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 6#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time 5 5 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: a. A review of standard inspections performed on all operators was conducted and found satisfactory. b. A review of public awareness inspections on all operators was conducted and found satisfactory with the required five-year period. c. A review of drug & alcohol inspections were found satisfactory and completed within the five year period. d. Satisfactory e. No LNG in the State of Vermont. f. Construction inspections were performed and met the 20% level. g. Satisfactory. h. A review of DIMP inspections of all operators was conducted and found satisfactory. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: Yes, they use IA for all inspections. A review of items a thru h found the forms complete with their findings of facts. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 3 Is state verifying monitoring (Protocol 9/Form15) of operators OQ programs? This 2 2 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, VT Gas Safety form inspected on 10-19-2023 was reviewed and found complete. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 7#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 84 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? 2 1 Evaluator Notes: a. No, the state's largest operator, Vermont Gas Systems, Inc., plan was not reviewed annually to ensure they are completing the full cycle of the DIMP process. The last review was conducted in calendar year 2021. A loss of one point occurred on this item. b. Satisfactory. No cast iron or any plastic pipe have shown a record of leaks. c. No low-pressure distribution systems in the State of Vermont. 5 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA 2 2 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: a. & b. No cast iron pipe in the State of Vermont. c. This item is covered under the IA question set. d. This is covered under the standard inspection. e. Satisfactory f. No low-pressure distribution systems in the State of Vermont. g. Vermont Gas Systems has 43 locations containing 139 inside meters in the State of Vermont. Each of the regulators are vented outside of the building wall and have an overpressure shut off valve. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: No advisory bulletins were issued in CY2023 but when a new advisory bulletin is released it is sent to all operators via email. DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 8#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 9All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to 10 10 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: A review of 30 compliance action letters were conducted. Letters were sent via email to the company officer and identified probable violations. All violations were documented and routinely reviewed by Program Manager and Inspector to ensure compliance action was taken by operator personnel. No probable violations were issued but letters of compliance concerns issued. f. Yes, Vermont Department of Public Service has issued a civil penalty in the amount $15,000 again Haskins Gas Service on March 29, 2019. g. Satisfactory h. Satisfactory i. Satisfactory j. Satisfactory All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 8 (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: One incident occurred on July 11, 2023, with Haskin Gas Service. The incident was investigated, and a report of findings will DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 9#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 10be released in the future. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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: No response was required from previous letter. 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Info Only Info Only Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, Vermont Department of Public Service participated in the NEPSR meeting held on October 24-25, 2023, in Westbourne, Mass. The number of participants at the meeting was 176 individuals. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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, Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. submitted their report on March 10, 2023. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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, this is accomplished via their website. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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: No safety related condition report issued in CY2023. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 1 1 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; and b. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, Program Manager has responded to NAPSR surveys. b. No WMS tasks were assigned in CY2023. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 1 1 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 10#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 1115 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: 1 1 No waivers/special permits were issued in CY2023. 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Yes, reviewed file folders on their agency's drive and found all files well organized and accessible. No areas of concern. 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 3 3 Evaluator Notes: requirements. Program Manager is familiar and in the process of completing this year's SICT data. He has a good understanding of the All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication Info Only Info Only site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, Program Manager is familiar with the state performance metrics and has reviewed the data. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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 Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: Vermont Gas Systems Inc. has adopted the PSMS. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A loss of one point occurred in this section of the review. See question D.4. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 49 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 11#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 12PART 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: This was a construction inspection performed at 140 Federal Street in St. Albans, VT. The operator was Vermont Gas Company. Personnel in attendance was Chris Franley and Justin White with E. Pyle Construction Company. Matt Hecklinger was the Vermont Department of Public Service Inspector being observed. Glynn Blanton, PHMSA was in attendance. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: observed into the form. Yes, inspector was using the Vermont Department of Public Service construction inspection form and completed the items All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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 requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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 requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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: Yes. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 12#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 13b. 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 Evaluator Notes: All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 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: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 13#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 14PART 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: Yes, Vermont Department of Public Service monitors Vermont Gas System damages in a spreadsheet entitled "Data of Hits to Calls". The annual reports are posted and compared to previous years. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 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 requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 2 2 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation 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 requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 4 4 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? 2 2 DUNS: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 14#
VT NG Program Evaluation, 2023, page 15Evaluator Notes: a. Third party contractors are the group causing the highest number of damages. b. Yes, training is being provided by Vermont Gas Systems and VT DPS. c. Yes, insufficient excavation practices best describe the reason for the excavation damages. d. Yes. All requirements for this question were found satisfied. No loss of points. 5 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: 809376791 2023 Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 15#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.