# 2010 VT NG Program Evaluation - vt2010ngprogramevaluation (Vermont; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA vt2010ngprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2010 VT NG Program Evaluation - vt2010ngprogramevaluation (Vermont; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2010-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2010 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for Vermont.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-vt-ng-program-evaluation-vt2010ngprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-vt-ng-program-evaluation-vt2010ngprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-vt-ng-program-evaluation-vt2010ngprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/876/vt2010ngprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Incident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 1

2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2010 Natural Gas State Agency: Vermont Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No Date of Visit: 09/12/2011 - 09/16/2011 Agency Representative: Hans E. Mertens, Director of Engineering & G.C. Morris, Gas Engineer PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Honorable Elizabeth H. Miller, Commissioner Agency: Vermont Department of Public Service Address: 112 State Street City/State/Zip: Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2601 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 2010 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual certification/agreement attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART F): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART F, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A General Program Qualifications 26 26 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 23.5 19.5 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Incident Investigations 3.5 3.5 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 7 7 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 8.5 TOTALS 93 88.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 95.2 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 2

PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state submit complete and accurate information on the attachments to its most current 60105(a) Certification/60106 (a) Agreement? (NOTE: PHMSA Representative to verify certification/agreement attachments by reviewing appropriate state documentation. Score a deficiency in any one area as "needs improvement". Attachment numbers appear in parenthesis) Previous Question A.1, Items a-h worth 1 point each Yes = 8 No = 0 Needs Minor Improvement = 3-7 Needs Major Improvement = 2 a. State Jurisdiction and agent status over gas facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Gas facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Gas pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the gas pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: A.1 Yes, 8 of 8 pts. 88 insp days, 1.00 my, items a-h all okay. 8 8 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance with 60105(a) Certification/60106(a) Agreement requirements (fatality, injury requiring hospitalization, property damage exceeding $50,000 - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports)? (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: A.2 Yes, see Gas Pipeline Safety Program-Inspection Procedures (SOP) Chapter 6, pg 12, 'initial notification'. Recommendation (2nd year): add a pipeline information sheet onto the DPS web site to provide general and emergency telephone numbers, addresses, and contacts. Include other information that is currently being provided by 'VGM.9001Gas Leak notification and reporting requirements' that G.C. currently mails to operators. 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety TQ seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if 2 2 state requested seminar, but T&Q could not provide, indicate date of state request for seminar. Seminars must be held at least once every 3 calendar years.) (Chapter 8.5) Previous Question A.4 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.3 Yes, It is a Regional Pipeline Safety Seminar that is held every year, and is called the New England Pipeline Safety Representatives (NEPSR/TQ) Pipeline Safety Seminar. TQ participates every year. Recent dates are/were; 10/26-27/2011, 10/19-20/2010, 10/21-22/2009, 10/15-16/2008. Benefits are a larger attendance base, improved presentations, and exchange of ideas. It is well supported by operators and they support an annual format. NEPAR members include; CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, & VT. 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.4 Yes, the files are in a file cabinet in G.C. Morris' office, or stored electronically on Department servers. 1 1 5 Did state records and discussions with the state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? (Chapter 4.1, Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: A.5 Yes, Hans and G.C. have a professional knowledge of the 49 CFR 190-194 regulations. 2 2 6 Did the state respond in writing within 60 days to the requested items in the Chairman's letter following the Region's last program evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.6 Yes, had a 2/2/2011 response on a letter dated 12/3/2010. 1 1 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 3

7 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the 1 1 previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8/A.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: receiving his training. A.7 Yes, the Eastern Region helped G.C. to better understand a full comprehensive Standard Inspection; and GIMP is being addressed and G.C. is Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year TQ training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding TQ courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all TQ courses, but are in a program which will achieve the completion of all applicable courses within 3 years of taking first course (5 years to sucessfully complete), or if a waiver has been granted by the applicable Region Director for the state, please answer yes.) (Chapter 4.4) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 3 No = 0 3 3 SLR Notes: A.8 Yes, both Hans and G.C. are trained. They are on track for the new HAZWOPR Training. G.C. has submitted the syllabus of a local HAZWOPER trainer to TQ and is waiting on TQ to indicate if the syllabus is acceptable. 9 Brief Description of Non-TQ training Activities: Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only For State Personnel: A.9 info only. State personnel- No special training in 2010. For Operators: Operators- DPS is co-sponsoring yearly Pipeline Safety Seminars, as a member of NEPSR, which is more frequent than the required 3 years. For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: Non-Operator- Continued to use the SDPP Grant to outreach to municipalities, builders, and home owners. Venues included mail outs, brochures and give-aways at the Home shows and at the Water Department convention, A One Call conference call to municipalities to instruct about One Call membership and invite their participation. SLR Notes: A.9 info only. State personnel- No special training in 2010. Operators- DPS is co-sponsoring yearly Pipeline Safety Seminars, as a member of NEPSR, which is more frequent than the required 3 years. Non-Operator- Continued to use the SDPP Grant to outreach to municipalities, builders, and home owners. Venues included mail outs, brochures and give-aways at the Home shows and at the Water Department convention, A One Call conference call to municipalities to instruct about One Call membership and invite their participation. 10 Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q OQ courses and Computer Based Training (CBT) before conducting OQ Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.12 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.10 Yes, G.C. Morris was trained in 12/2003 & Hans E. Mertens was trained in 2/2005. Course PL3OQ, (formerly 299). 1 1 11 Did the lead inspectors complete all required TQ Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: A.11 Yes, 1 point. Hans E. Mertens was trained in PL1297 5/05 (incomplete), PL3293 9/07, PL3254 2/03, & PL3292 12/04. G.C. Morris was trained in PL1297 5/05 & 1/11 (incomplete), PL3293 5/05, PL3254 3/06, & PL3292 6/04. 12 Was the ratio acceptable of Total inspection Person-days to Total Person-days charged to the program by state inspectors? (Region Director may modify points for just cause) (Chapter 4.3) Previous Question B.12 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 88.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.00 = 220.00 Ratio: A / B 88.00 / 220.00 = 0.40 5 5 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 4

If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 SLR Notes: A.12- Yes. a- '10 total inspection days 88. b- person days '10 is 1.00*220=220 days. c-score=A/B '10 score=88/220=.400. .400 is greater than .38. Okay. 13 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Info Only Info Only Question B.13 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: A.13. ? Staffing levels have remained the same with one trained inspector and the supervisor is also fully trained. A worthily related note is the hiring of an experienced engineer, in 4th qtr. 2010, who has assumed the management of the underground damage prevention program. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: A.14 The Vermont DPS currently sponsors various informational efforts to disseminate damage prevention and gas safety information to industry, commercial, and domestic entities. Regular activities include periodic damage prevention seminars and participation in yearly gas safety seminars for New England natural gas and propane business entities. The DPS also supports continuing training and certification for the Gas Pipeline Program staff to maintain expertise and professionalism related to this important public safety issue. The VT Managing Underground Safety Training (M.U.S.T.) organization (represents stakeholders from many entities in the excavation and construction industry) was heavily influenced by DPS and became the first regional entity in New England that achieved CGA liaison status. In addition, VT participates with the other New England states and annually conducts a region wide pipeline safety seminar. The DPS will continue to seek out and participate in opportunities to increase competency and credibility for the program personnel. Total points scored for this section: 26 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 5

PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators including LNG) 6.5 6.5 (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes + Incorporate LNG Yes = 6.5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Standard Inspections (Including LNG) (Max points = 2) b IMP Inspections (Including DIMP) (Max points = .5) c OQ Inspections (Max points = .5) d Damage Prevention (Max points = .5) e On-Site Operator Training (Max points = .5) f Construction Inspections (Max points = .5) g Incident/Accident Investigations (Max points = 1) h Compliance Follow-up (Max points = 1) Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: B.1. Yes a-- SOP 4.B, b-- SOP 4.B, c-- SOP 4.B, d-- SOP 4.B part of the Std Insp for 2010. e-- SOP 4.B - is opportunistically conducted during Std Insp and construction notifications and insp as available. Also the annual Pipeline Safety Seminars f-- SOP 4.B g-- SOP 4.B h-- SOP 4.B. 2 Did the written Procedures for selecting operators adequately address key concerns? (Chapter 5.1) Previous 2 2 Question B.2, items a-d are worth .5 point each Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b History of Operator/unit and/or location (including leakage , incident and compliance history) Yes No Needs Improvement c Type of activity being undertaken by operator (construction etc) Yes No Needs Improvement d For large operators, rotation of locations inspected Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: B.2 Yes, see SOP 4.A. Inspection Performance 3 Did the state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in its written procedures? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 0 SLR Notes: B.3 No, through 2010 the Transmission operator has not been GIMP inspected. The OQ program inspections were originally done in 2003 and 2005 and are now due for re-inspection. I strongly recommend that GIMP, DIMP, and OQ inspections & re-inspections be addressed in detail in your operations manual as ALL of them are technically DUE right now. Also, the Public Awareness Program Effectiveness Evaluation (PAPEE) inspections need to be scheduled and started. Standard Inspections are okay with their 5 year interval. 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: B.4 Yes, Vermont uses the federal forms, but only addresses one or two subjects per inspection, 'what can be accomplished in an inspection day'. 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 1 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.5 No. A review of the files shows that not all inspection portions have been done in the last five years. There was a discussion on how the Feds and other State partners achieve fully filling out the federal inspection forms during the October, 2010 review of the 2009 calendar year work. Training in this area was provided by the Eastern Region, PHMSA in early 2011. It is anticipated that most of the 2011 Standard Inspections will be complete. 6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.6 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 NA Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 6

Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.6 NA no SRCR in 2009 or 2010. 7 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) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.7- NA no cast iron in Vermont since ca. 2004. .5 NA 8 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.8- NA no cast iron in Vermont since ca. 2004. .5 NA 9 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21? (NTSB) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: B.9- Yes, this question has been placed on an addendum sheet. The addendum sheet was attached to Standard Inspections starting in 2011. 10 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? (NTSB) Previous Question 1 1 B.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.10 ? Yes, by reviewing the operator's annual reports and then asking the operators to explain how they are analyzing their information to improve their Damage Prevention program. This is also tied into One-Call reviews. VT was successful in securing a comprehensive $100K Damage Prevention Program Grant which performed a GAP analysis of the 9 elements. Results showed a path to improve all 9 elements to industry best practices. It also made recommendations for program enhancements. Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous 1 1 Question B.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.11 Yes. Practice is to have written and photo documentation even on the follow up of the corrections. The information is kept in multiple files; the Inspection file, the Warning file which includes the evidence, the violation letter, and the initial response; and if necessary, the NOPV file which opens a legal Public Service Board proceeding and the ultimate final order. 12 Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question D(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.12 Yes, see SOP Section 5, and the Public Service Board Rule (PSBR) 6.100. 1 1 13 Does the state have written procedures to notify an operator when a noncompliance is identified as specified in the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.13 Yes, see SOP Section 5, and the Public Service Board Rule (PSBR) 6.100. 1 1 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 7

14 Does the state have a written procedure for routinely reviewing the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(5)) Previous Question D(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.14 Yes, see SOP Section 5, and the Public Service Board Rule (PSBR) 6.100. 1 1 15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative 1 0 has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question D(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.15 No, problems found, 0 pts. At the time of the evaluation the 5 corrected PV records could not be found. Some of the 28 pending corrections appear to be insufficiently documented in the files. It is observed that staff with Library Science skills could be asked to help improve the files. 16 Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that 1 1 prompt corrective actions were taken by operators, within the time frames established by the procedures and compliance correspondence, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? Previous Question D(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.16 Yes. The operators have been contacted per procedures. The problems of missing documentation and files were addressed in question B.15. 17 If compliance could not be established by other means, did state pipeline safety program staff request formal action, such as a "Show Cause Hearing" to correct pipeline safety violations? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 SLR Notes: B.17 Yes, no formal actions are pending at this time. One action from 2008 finished the formal action process during 2010. It is an available process, but is rarely needed. Most Operators are cooperative. Even fines are seldom necessary. See SOP Section 5, and the Public Service Board Rule (PSBR) 6.100. 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question 1 1 D(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.18 Yes, most actions remain informal and are closed informally. The formal process is occasionally necessary to achieve compliance. See SOP Section 5, and the Public Service Board Rule (PSBR) 6.100. 19 Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.19 Yes. The practice is established and Procedures are in place, see SOP 5.A. .5 .5 20 Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.20 Yes. See SOP Section 5, and the Public Service Board Rule (PSBR) 6.100. 1 1 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.21 ? B.26 NA. Vermont is a 60105(a) program. 1 NA 22 Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question D(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 NA Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 8

SLR Notes: B.21 ? B.26 NA. Vermont is a 60105(a) program. 23 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Previous Question D(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: B.21 ? B.26 NA. Vermont is a 60105(a) program. 24 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.21 ? B.26 NA. Vermont is a 60105(a) program. 1 NA 25 SLR Notes: Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA B.21 ? B.26 NA. Vermont is a 60105(a) program. 26 SLR Notes: Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA B.21 ? B.26 NA. Vermont is a 60105(a) program. 27 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: B.27 Yes, He is aware of VT's process and its limitations. Info Only Info Only 28 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: B.28 The Department of Public Service recognizes that both informal allegations issued by the Gas Pipeline Safety Program staff and formal compliance actions, coupled with the legal proceedings via the Public Service Board have been effective mechanisms to attain compliance with the State and Federal Gas Safety codes. Increased use and authority for issuing fines would be an enhancement. The authority to issue fines is not currently vested in the Pipeline Safety Dept. Total points scored for this section: 19.5 Total possible points for this section: 23.5 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 9

PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question D(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question D(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 4 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Previous Question D(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: C.1 ? C.8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 10

PART D - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question E.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: D.1 Yes, 'Appendix E ? Federal/State Cooperation in Case of an Incident/Accident' is being followed. Also the new proposed Federal Incident form is being studied. Also see SOP 6.D. 2 Are state personnel familiar with the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6 ? Appendix D) Previous Question E.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: D.2 Yes, the State has a good understanding of the MOU between NTSB and DOT (PHMSA). Also see SOP 6. .5 .5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of incident notifications received? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: D.3 YES, All incidents are investigated and a report is made. (no reportable incidents in '09 or '10.) 1 1 4 If an onsite investigation of an incident was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information by other means to determine the facts and support the decision not to go on-site? Previous Question E.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: of the Federal Incident Form. D.4 Yes, see SOP 6. Sufficient information is determined through telephonic contact, the State Underground Facility Damage Report, and the DPS version 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? Previous Question E.5, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations and Document Review b. Contributing Factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate SLR Notes: D.5 NA there were no federally reportable incidents in 2009 or 2010. 2 NA Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any incident investigation(s)? Previous Question E.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: D.6 NA there were no federally reportable incidents in 2009 or 2010. Procedures are in place, see SOP 6. 1 NA 7 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports .5 NA to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate annual report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) (Chapter 6) Previous Question E.7/E.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: D.7 NA there were no federally reportable incidents in 2009 or 2010, neither interstate nor intrastate. DPS and the Eastern Region have a good association and have worked together in the past. 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: D.8 The Department of Public Service regularly performs outreach and education to gas operators to inform these companies of the requirement to promptly DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 11

report gas leak events and other incidents with could cause concern to the community to both the Public Service Board and the Department of Public Service. The Department also appreciates the continual exchange of topical incident information, both regional and locally. Total points scored for this section: 3.5 Total possible points for this section: 3.5 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 12

PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: E.1 Yes, DPS has created an addendum sheet and placed this question on it. The addendum sheet is attached to Standard Inspections. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? New 2008 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: E.2 Yes, it is in the Std Insp Form, under Damage Prevention, and is on the Construction Inspection Form. 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to 2 2 its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: E.3 Yes. The DPS strongly encourages all regulated companies, excavators, and all underground utilities to be members of MUST and CGA. CGA membership is not mandatory. All regulated companies are also encouraged to follow CGA best practices. DPS requires DIRT designated reporting from operators and they upload the information into the national DIRT database. Work is in process to develop a virtual DIRT where operators upload reports directly into DIRT and DIRT transmits a report to DPS. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: E.4 Needs Improvement but credit awarded: The VT Damage Prevention Statute identifies 'companies' in a way that neither includes propane distribution operators nor excavators. Therefore, neither propane distribution operators nor excavators are required to report line hits to VT DPS or One-Call. This problem makes it likely that line hits are being under reported. DPS divides the line hits it is aware of and divides them by the call counts that are downloaded from One-Call. Hits per thousand calls is then calculated. 5 Did the state review operators' records of accidents and failures due to excavation damage to ensure causes of failure are addressed to minimize the possibility of recurrence as required by 192.617? Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: E.5 Yes, all hits must be reported to DPS. Operators are queried during Unit inspections. 2 2 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: E.6 The DPS has continually improved its Damage prevention Program for over 20 years. It regularly administers damage prevention training to a wide variety of entities involved with underground facilities, design, planning and excavation. The Department has received an SDPP grant which is currently addressing further program improvements related to the 9 elements, communications, technology, education. These initiatives are expected to continue a trend of lower damage incidents in Vermont. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 13

PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only Name of Operator Inspected: Intergy dba Pyrofax Energy Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: G.C. Morris Location of Inspection: Rt 100, Waterbury Ctr, VT Date of Inspection: September 13, 2011 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume SLR Notes: Intergy contacts; Kim Brill, Compliance Officer; Kelly Chase, Tech; Gordon Waterhouse, Tech. Also inspected Vermont Gas Systems, Inc, opid 21190, G.C. Morris, Hinesburg, VT, September 14, 2011, Patrick Gaume. Vermont Gas Systems contacts; Chris LeForce, Engineering supervisor; Kristi Oxholm, Compliance Coordinator; Steve Miner, Operations Manager; Lee Brown, Maintenance Supervisor; & a NE Underground crew of 5. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.2 Yes, both Operators were notified in advance and they each had several personnel participating in the inspections. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an acceptable inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Previous Question F.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: F.3 Yes, PHMSA (OQ) Field Inspection Form 15 and the VT Checklist: Propane Pipeline System Facilities. For VGS- PHMSA Form 15 & the VT Checklist: Plastic Pipeline Construction. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question F.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.4 Yes, The OQ Field Inspections were thoroughly documented. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps, pyrometer, soap spray, CGI, etc.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: F.5 Yes, half cell, multimeter, hand tools, water, OQ documentation & procedure sheets. For VGS- Contractors equipment, OQ task forms for 'Operator excavation and backfilling in vicinity of Pipeline' & 'Locator wire', line locate equipment, components for 'locate wire' installation, clean sand, & clean limestone gravel. 6 What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) New 2008 Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: F.6 OQ field inspection of 'Monitor Corrosion Control Methods' and 'Maintain Key Valves', also a site inspection of all regulated equipment. For VGS- OQ field inspection of 'Operator excavation and backfilling in vicinity of Pipeline' & 'Locator wire', and a construction site inspection of tracer wire installation, proving, and backfilling. 7 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) New 2008, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures DUNS: 809376791 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Vermont VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 14

b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) SLR Notes: F.7 Yes, (OQ of four tasks & field activities at two sites & two operators) These were scheduled OQ reviews. 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question F.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.8. Yes, G. C. showed adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program goals and regulations. 2 2 9 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Previous Question F.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.9. Yes, it was conducted verbally at the end of day, The VGS review was at the end of day in their Area office. 1 1 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question F.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.10. Yes, discussed better field schematics concerning equipment, valves, and key valves; better documentation for proving instrument calibrations, and anodeless riser air-soil interface requirements. For VGS- the OQ Field Verification Forms for the covered tasks were not available on-site even after advance notification. Steps that are necessary for completing and testing the project are missing from the O&M procedures. P
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 63806