Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA wi2015ngprogramevaluation
2015 WI NG Program Evaluation - wi2015ngprogramevaluation (Wisconsin; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA wi2015ngprogramevaluation
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation for WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE 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 -- Incident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 22015 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2015 Gas State Agency: Wisconsin Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 10/17/2016 - 10/21/2016 Agency Representative: Tom Stemrich, Pipeline Safety Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Evaluator Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Ellen Nowak, Chairperson Agency: Wisconsin Public Service Commission Address: 610 N. Whitney Way City/State/Zip: Madison, Wisonsin 53707 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2015 (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 50 50 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 11 11 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 119 119 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified operator data with PDM and WI PSC for accuracy. The data was accurate for the number of operators. The only difference was Northern Natural Gas which is due to new inspections of farm taps. Will be included in next years Progress Report due to the operator being added after December 2015. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed inspection activities for accuracy of progress report attachment 2. Submitted changes to Carrie to change data to make it accurate. Inspection days were not accurate due to the addition of inspections conducted at the end of the year. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were three LNG operators missing that were added at the time of the evaluation. 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: Yes, there was one incident in 2015 which was verified in PDM and with the WI PSC files. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed compliance activities and compared with the progress report. Have a "Continuing Violation" check box in database to track violations. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Files are kept electronically and werre available to review and print. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed T&Q records and compared with WI PSC files to verify Progress Report. 1 1 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Have adopted all rules and adopt changes in about 18 months after final rules are implemented. 1 1 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 49 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in 1 1 detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Planned goals are to dedicate more time to construction activities. Eliminate all remaining PVC services within 3 years. One long term goal is to try to adopt enforcement of one-call statute. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is mainly complying with Part A of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 2 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is rewriting their procedures. Currently using the old procedures but also incorporating the new procedures. The procedures have guidance for standard inspections which include pre and post inspection activities. 2 IMP and DIMP 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: IMP and DIMP inspection procedures are included in the procedures. 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: Procedures include OQ Inspection procedures which address pre and post inspection activities. 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: Yes, Damage Prevention inspections are included in their procedures. 1 1 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Operator training is included in their procedures. 1 1 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. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Construction Inspections are outlined in their procedures. 1 1 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 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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 areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Yes No Needs Improvement Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Yes each inspection type has an interval, 5 years is the max interval. b. Yes, the WI PSC uses operator history as a prioritization of inspections. c. Type of activity is part of their inspection plan. d. The location and HCA's is consideration for prioritizing inspections. e. They have process to identify high risk units. f. Units are broken down appropriately. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is generally in compliance with Part B of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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): 511.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 4.83 = 1063.33 Ratio: A / B 511.00 / 1063.33 = 0.48 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Verified inspection person days with attachment and records. 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 DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. All inspectors are qualified to lead inspections except for Andrew Miller. He has only been with the PSC for about 1 year. b. All inspectors who lead IMP/DIMP inspections are qualified in accordance with the requirements. c. Almost all inspectors have completed the Root Cause course. d. Several inspectors attended the MEA training courses which include, regulations, OQ training, meter training, etc. e. Reviewed inspection records to verify all inspectors were qualified who lead inspections. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Tom Stemrich is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 2 2 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 was sent on December 11, 2015 and response was received on February 2, 2016. 2 2 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the last seminar was January 26-30, 2015. 2 2 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 5 5 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 8Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed inspection reports to verify inspections were conducted within the specified intervals. 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 PSC has electronic inspection forms in their Pipeline Safety database which has all regulation code and types of inspections performed. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: yes, there is no cast iron in the state of Wisconsin. Cast iron procedures questions are still on forms. 1 1 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There is no cast iron in the state but forms still have cast iron questions. 1 1 10 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by 1 1 excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspectors review operator emergency procedures during the inspections. Inspection forms covers underground leaks. 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, state inspectors review accident/incident to assure adequate response by operators. 1 1 12 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 PSC reviews annual reports and incident reports for accuracy and trends. There is an increase in the number of "other" pipeline and services on one of their operators(Excel) which is incorrect. They have told the operator to make corrections but have not been able to correct the problem. 13 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Did state input all applicable OQ, DIMP/IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 2 2 Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 9Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Have not performed an IMP inspection since 2011. The PSC is completing an IMP inspection in 2016. OQ database had inspections downloaded into the database. 14 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, ask operators during inspections to assure NPMS have been updated. 1 1 15 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: Yes, perform drug and alcohol inspections. 2 2 16 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 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the PSC conducts OQ inspections and verify OQ plans. Also conduct field verification inspections to assure technicians are qualified. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 2 up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: In reviewing the IMP database the PSC has not conducted a comprehensive IMP since 2011. They did conduct a comprehensive IMP of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation but has not been uploaded. The PSC needs to perform comprehensive IMP inspections of other operators to meet their 5 year interval. The PSC did perform several pig runs and field digs. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P DIMP ? First round of program inspections should have been complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Completed all DIMP inspections by December 2014. Performed 2 inspection days in 2015. 2 2 19 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. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years per RP1162 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, the state conducts inspections which include Public Awareness questions. Completed first round of PAPEI inspections. DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1020 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: The WI PSC website has information for stakeholders and inspection reports are available on their Electronic Regulatory Filing system (ERF). 21 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: In reviewing PDM there was one SRCR which was sent to the state. The state did conduct an inspection of the corrective action. State needs to review PDM for any SRCR to verify that they are also reported to the PSC for appropriate follow up. 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC asked the operators to submit data on their plastic pipe that is know to have defects. They monitor the amount of pipe to eventually have all pipe that may be defective removed. Also use DIMP federal form which covers plastic pipe threats. 23 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, participate in surveys from NAPSR and PHMSA. 1 1 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified 1 1 conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: The state issued a waiver in 2011 which involves miter joints of plastic pipe. The WI PSC is aware of the waiver and verified that the waiver conditions were met. 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, WI PSC attended the National NAPSR meeting. 1 1 26 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: PSC has analyzed data from previous years to check for trends. Trends are not trending negatively so haven't implemented any accelerated measures. Have tried to get enforcement of damage prevention but haven't been successful. 27 General Comments: Info Only = No Points DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 11Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is mainly in compliance with Part C of the evaluation. Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Yes procedure states that correspondence goes to company officer. b. Yes, procedures has review process to prevent breakdowns or delays. 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 member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Document probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement c. Resolve probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement e. Were applicable civil penalties outlined in correspondence with operator(s) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a.yes, reviewed inspection files and correspondence was sent to company officials. b. Yes, reviewed inspection reports and all probable violations were documented. c. Yes, in reviewing the files, probable violations were resolved in accordance to procedures. d. Yes, the inspector and program manager review progress of probable violations. e. There were no civil penalties issued in 2015. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports and all probable violations were documented and had compliance letters sent to operators. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, due process is given to all parties. 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 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Program Manager is familiar with civil penalty process. Process and law is under 196.745 in the State Statute. Limits are $25,000 not to exceed $500,000. Did not issue any civil penalties in 2015. 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: DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 13The WI PSC has not issued a civil penalty in many years. The PSC has not had any problems in getting the operators to comply with the pipeline safety regulations without the need of civil penalties. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is mainly complying with Part D of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes the PSC has written procedures to conduct incident/accident investigations. 2 2 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 incidents, including after-hours reports? And did state keep adequate records of Incident/ Accident notifications received? Chapter 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Acknowledgement of MOU between NTSB and PHMSA (Appendix D) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Acknowledgement of Federal/State Cooperation in case of incident/accident (Appendix E) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, every operator is notified of who to contact to report an incident. If any phone numbers or there are personal changes the operators are notified of the changes. a. Yes, the Program Manager is familiar of the MOU. b. Yes, the Program Manager is aware of the Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 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: There was one reportable incident in 2015 which was investigated by the PSC. Incident report was reviewed. The cause was 3rd party damage. 4 Were all incidents 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 when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, an investigation was conducted and was thoroughly documented. a. Observations were documented in the report. b. The contributing factors were noted as not having a good explanation/confusing location description. c. Recommend that locators call the one call to assure location of not sure on location. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There were no violations issued to the operator due to the incident. 1 1 6 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 15Evaluator Notes: Did not assist the Region on any incident. 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, share information during the State of the State presentation. 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is mainly complying with Part E of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 16PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or 2 2 its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, have question 614(c)(6) on their inspection form which covers boring/drilling procedures and is asked during the 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, during the inspections, the inspectors review the one-call procedures and verifies that they are being followed. 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, the PSC invites the One call representative to present during their seminar. Also promote during their inspections. 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? (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, the Program Manager has analyzed and evaluated the pipeline damages per 1,000 locates. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WI PSC is mainly complying with Part F of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Wisconson Gas Company Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Jeffrey Murley -Lead; Andrew Miller; Tom Stemrich Location of Inspection: Milwaukee, WI Date of Inspection: October 20 ,2016 Name of PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Mr. Jeffrey Murley conduct construction inspection. He witnessed the testing of meter set with no issues found. Mr. Andrew Miller was assisting Mr. Tom Stemrich perform a construction inspection. They observed/inspected the fusion of two service lines. There were no issued found. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the operator was notified in advance and was given the opportunity for any representative to be present. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector utilized a state construction inspection form as a guide during his inspection and to document his findings. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector documented his results on the inspection form and was taking notes. 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.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the operator had the necessary equipment to perform the construction activities. 1 1 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: The inspector reviewed construction procedures for fusion and qualification records. 2 2 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 187 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector had adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety rules and regulations. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector discussed the inspection results with the operator. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The inspector conducted an exit interview and no probable violations were found. 1 1 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance Info Only Info Only DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 19E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: The inspector inspected installation of several service lines. He reviewed the fusion qualifications and procedures. He interacted with the operator and contractor very well. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 20PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is 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? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 4 Were probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 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: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: WI PSC is not an Interstate Agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
WI NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 21PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: WI PSC 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: WI PSC 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: WI PSC 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: WI PSC 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: WI PSC 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: WI PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: WI PSC 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: 969115450 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Wisconsin WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.