RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA wa-2016-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission 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 -- Accident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (if applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 1#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 22016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Washington Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 09/18/2017 - 09/22/2017 Agency Representative: Sean Mayo PHMSA Representative: Michael Thompson Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: David W. Danner, Chairman Agency: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Address: 1300 South Evergreen Park Drive City/State/Zip: Olympia, WA 98502 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes 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 2016 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 42 42 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Accident Investigations 11 11 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 11 11 H Interstate Agent State (if applicable) 7 7 I 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 117 117 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 2#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No Issues found. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No Issues found. The tracking for this information is done in their data base and uses information input on the inspectors time sheets. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed states records and the PHMSA Data to verify. No Issues Found 1 1 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed NRC information and state records to verify, found no issues 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Inspection reports and compliance documents were reviewed to verify accuracy of the progress report. No issues found 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 The pipeline programs files have all been moved to an electronic data base and are well organized and accessible. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, it was verified using information on the PHMSA TQ (SABA) system 1 1 8 Verification of Part 195,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, they are updated annually. 1 1 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 1 1 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 3#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 4Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WUTC was specific in describing their accomplishments for 2016. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 4#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No Issues, procedures found in WUTC manual, Sections 14, 15 and 16 2 2 2 IMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No Issues, procedures found in WUTC manual, Sections 22 and 36 1 1 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No Issues, procedures found in WUTC manual, Section 17 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post- inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 No Issues, procedures found in WUTC manual, Sections 15, 16 and new updated section 31. (Part of Standard Inspection) 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as 1 1 needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Operators in 2016. Procedure #27 details actions and the time is tracked in system. There were 16.5 days completed with Master Meter 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No Issues, procedures found in WUTC manual, Sections 21. DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 5#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 6b. 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 area, 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: Reviewed WUTC procedures manual and found no issues. Section 13 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 6#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? (Director of State Programs may modify with just cause) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 73.03 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.70 = 154.00 Ratio: A / B 73.03 / 154.00 = 0.47 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Ratio for 2016 inspection days was .47, all points awarded. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/prgram 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: In 2016 WUTC received training from outside sources such as; ARGUS - Asbestos training and NACE - Cathodic protection training. New Program Manager has scheduled training with TQ. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate 2 2 adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes discussions with the State Program Manager and their Lead Engineer indicated adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and the 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Letter to Chairman sent on 10/21/2016 and the response back to PHMSA on 12/12/2016. 2 2 5 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: Yes, the Gas Program held a seminar for operators on 5/12/2015 and the Hazardous Liquids Program held a seminar for operators on 4/22/2014. 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 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 5 5 Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 7#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 8Yes, a review of all inspections conducted in 2016 and WUTC records documents verified that all types of inspections were inspected in accordance with the time intervals established in their procedures. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 2 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, the WUTC uses IA for their Interstate inspections and is using the IA for their distribution inspections as part of a pilot process for states that have their own state regulations merges into the PHMSA IA system. 8 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 195.402(c)(5)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes 1 1 9 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, the annual report and a failure report by operators is required by state rules and they are used to do trending and analysis. They have developed a fact sheet for each operator for inspection and leak issues. 10 Did state input all applicable OQ, LIMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, verified with no issues. 2 2 11 Has state confirmed intrastate operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Section (B). Yes, the WUTC has added a question to the federal form to help accomplish this. It is question number 1 (49USC 60132, 12 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 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: 2 2 Yes, the WUTC completes a D&A with each standard inspection. (Only one for each operator, not each unit) 13 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 2 2 of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 195 Part G Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WUTC does a OQ Plan inspection every five years and does a protocol 9 form with every standard inspection. The operators are required by state rule to submit all plan updates or changes to the WUTC. DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 8#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 914 Is state verifying operator's hazardous liquid integrity management (L IMP) Programs are 2 2 up to date? This should include a previous review of LIMP 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?). 49 CFR 195.452 Appendix C Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the programs are scheduled for inspection every five years, while monitoring of the progress of tests and remedial actions taking place is done on an ongoing basis. 15 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should have been completed by December 2013. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 195.440 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes they continue to perform inspections and are adding additional questions to the Standard inspection form. 16 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 1 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, they meet quarterly with the Citizens Committee on Pipeline Safety, have quarterly meetings with LDC's, Post all inspection, enforcement action on their website along with other important information, resources and rule making updates. They have also started to do a quarterly news letter to be mailed to all operators in 2017. 17 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: No SRC's in 2016. 1 NA 18 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, they provided documentation of their participation in 2016. 1 1 19 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. Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, they have reviewed and closed all applicable waivers that could be. 1 1 20 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Program Manager - Alan Rathbun and Chief Engineer - Joe Subsits attended. 1 1 21 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site ? http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm 2 2 Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 9#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 10Needs Improvement = 1 No = 0 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: Covered this with Program Manager - Damages per 1000 locate tickets have Decreased from 2015 to 2016 back to a level close to 2014, but are still below 2010 thru 2012 and are at about 4.2 per 1000 locate requests. Inspection days per 1000 miles of gas pipeline have decreased from the 2014 and 2015 to almost 11 per 1000 miles of gas pipeline. The days for Hazardous Liquids pipelines decreased significantly from 2014 to 2015 by more than half to around 70 days. DUNS: 088967570 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 11 Inspection days per MMO/LPG have increased significantly over 2015 from 8 days to 14 days. Pipeline inspector qualification has improved in the core+ additional training and with inspectors over 5 years for both the gas and hazardous liquids programs. A leak repaired per 1000 miles is about the same as 2015 with almost 100 per 1000 miles, while hazardous leaks repaired increased just slightly over 2015. Outstanding leaks have decreased significantly from 2015 to 2016. 22 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool. (No points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Yes, the days in the SICT are close to what was completed in 2016. 23 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Info Only Info Only Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 (No Points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, they reviewed report. They have no gathering lines in Washington state. 24 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 42 Total possible points for this section: 42 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 10#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 11PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, the procedures can be found in the WUTC's manual in Sections 25,26 and 34. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 4 document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board director 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. Were applicable civil penalties outlined in correspondence with operator(s) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, compliance actions were sent to company officers and are routinely reviewed by the Chief Engineer. The WUTC started outlining applicable civil penalties in all compliance correspondence after being advised to by the State Liaison during the 2016 NAPSR Western Region meeting. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, verified by reviewing all inspections and compliance records. 2 2 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WUTC has policy and procedures in place to insure all parties are given reasonable due process. 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Alan Rathbun the program manager until May of 2016 was familiar with he process for imposing civil penalties, and so is the new program manager, Sean Mayo. Both use the Chief Engineer, Joe Subsits input in decision making on compliance issues. 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: Yes, the WUTC levied $7,200,000.00 in civil penalties in 2016. Some of the cases will be finalized in 2017. DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 11#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 127 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 12#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 13PART E - Accident 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, the WUTC has procedures that cover from notification to completion including the completion of the 30day reports. Their procedures can be found in Sections 10,19,and 20 of their manual. 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 accidents, 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, the WUTC procedures can be found in Sections 10 and 19 of their manual. Had discussion on making clear in the procedures that the Engineer on call is to contact the Chief Engineer once determined that the call is a reportable incident. 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: Yes, each incident reviewed was well documented, including contact names, dates, events and evidence. 1 1 4 Were all accidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, all incident records for 2016 were reviewed to verify. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes, verified in review of incidents, with PSE Greenwood incident receiving the largest proposed civil penalty at 3.2 million. 6 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the 1 1 operator accident 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: Yes, the WUTC procedure #24 calls for the reporting engineer to be responsible for the data input and verifying the 30 day report. 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 13#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 14Evaluator Notes: Yes, the Program Manager does this in the state of the state report given at each NAPSR annual Western Region meeting. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 14#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 15PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Listed in special questions titled, (PHMSA areas of emphasis) 2 2 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, reflected in records and field checklists: Distribution questions 106-114, Transmission questions 93-107. 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, WUTC has a dedicated position to damage prevention, and occupies a seat on the State's Dig Law Safety Committee. WUTC has also participated in Dig Law newsletter and various trade shows. 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, WUTC uses information from the State's DIRT system and the PHMSA annual report. Data is analyzed by county to determine dig-in rates and routine reports are assessed to look at root causes. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 15#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 16PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Tidewater Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Dennis Ritter Location of Inspection: Pasco, WA Date of Inspection: 9/12-14/2017 Name of PHMSA Representative: Michael Thompson Evaluator Notes: This was a full Standard Inspection, Records, Procedures and Field Info Only Info Only 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be 1 1 present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the operator was given notice well in advance of the inspection and had all representatives necessary present and available during the inspection. Lead for Tidewater was, Ron Mcclary 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 the PHMSA IA to conduct this inspection. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector kept good notes in IA and also used written notes. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,valve keys, half cells, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No equipment used in field, observation only.. 1 NA 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, the inspector did a very thorough review of the operators records, procedures and field activities. 2 2 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 16#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 177 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and 2 2 regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, observation of the inspector during this inspection showed he has a more than adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and the regulations. 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the 1 1 interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector conducted daily summaries of the inspection and presented his findings as well as a final exit interview with the operators representatives. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes, the inspector discussed two probable violations and one area of concern with the operators representatives. 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 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 17#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 18D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 18#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 19PART H - Interstate Agent State (if applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WUTC uses the PHMSA - IA program. 1 1 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: Yes, the WUTC uses a tracking sheet. 1 1 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: Yes, all were submitted well within the 60 day window. 1 1 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: Yes, NO issues 1 1 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: No Issues. 1 1 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WUTC has set a 45 day bench mark for themselves. 1 1 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: Yes, no issues. 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Shared evaluation findings with Acting Regional Director - Dustin Hubbard and requested his input. He found no issues. Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 19#
WA HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 20PART I - 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 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: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 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: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 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: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 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: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: WUTC does not have a 60106 Agreement. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 088967570 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 20#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.