RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA wv-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA 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: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 1#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 22017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: West Virginia Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 05/01/2018 - 05/01/2018 Agency Representative: Mary Friend, Director, Gas Pipeline Safety PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Michael A. Albert, Chairman Agency: Public Service Commission of West Virginia Address: 201 Brooks Street City/State/Zip: Charleston, West Virginia 25301 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 2017 (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 43 43 D Compliance Activities 11 11 E Accident Investigations 6 6 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 11 11 H Interstate Agent State (if applicable) 1 1 I 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) 1 1 TOTALS 104 104 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 2#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed data - no issues. Totals changed from 2016 due to operators being determined as interstate pipelines. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed data - no issues. 1 1 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 data - no issues. 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 data - no issues. None in 2017. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed data - no issues. None in 2017. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues, all files are kept electronically either in the GPSD case tracking system or in IA. 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: No issues. Reviewed information on SABA. 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: All regulations have been adopted. 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: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 3#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 4Evaluator Notes: Reviewed Attachement 10 - no issues. 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: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 4#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: Standard Inspections are listed in Part B - Type of Inspections, Section 2, on page 11 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Pre-Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.1 - Pre-Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.2 - Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Post Inspection Activities are listed in Part C - Post Inspection Activities, Section C .1 - Inspection Completion Completion and Processing on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 2 IMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: IMP/DIMP Inspections are listed in Part B - Type of Inspections, Section 2.3(b), on page 21 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Pre-Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.1 - Pre-Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.2 - Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Post Inspection Activities are listed in Part C - Post Inspection Activities, Section C .1 - Inspection Completion Completion and Processing on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: OQ Inspections are listed in Part B - Type of Inspections, Section 2.3(e), on page 22 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Pre-Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.1 - Pre-Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.2 - Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 5#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 6Post Inspection Activities are listed in Part C - Post Inspection Activities, Section C .1 - Inspection Completion Completion and Processing on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 1 1 insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post- inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Damage Prevention/One Call Inspections are listed in Part B - Type of Inspections, Section 2.1(l), on page 15 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Pre-Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.1 - Pre-Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.2 - Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Post Inspection Activities are listed in Part C - Post Inspection Activities, Section C .1 - Inspection Completion Completion and Processing on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as 1 1 needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Operator Training Inspections are listed in Part B - Type of Inspections, Section 3, Other Activities, 3.2 on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Pre-Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.1 - Pre-Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.2 - Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Post Inspection Activities are listed in Part C - Post Inspection Activities, Section C .1 - Inspection Completion Completion and Processing on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 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: Construction Inspections are listed in Part B - Type of Inspections, Section 2.2, Field Inspections, 2.2(b), on page 16 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Pre-Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.1 - Pre-Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. Inspection Activities are listed in Part A - Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Section 6.2 - Inspection on page 8 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 6#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 7Post Inspection Activities are listed in Part C - Post Inspection Activities, Section C .1 - Inspection Completion Completion and Processing on page 23 of written Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 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 b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic 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: Written procedures reference state code and frequency required by state guidelines that includes items listed. 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: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 7#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 8PART 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): 16.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.08 = 17.60 Ratio: A / B 16.00 / 17.60 = 0.91 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: .91 ratio exceeds the needed .38 ratio. 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: All inspectors had the required training to lead inspections and root cause training. 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: Mary Friend has been the program manager for four years. No issues. 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: The response was within the required time frame and concerns addressed. 2 2 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Seminar held April 2017 in Charleston and Bridgeport. For both gas and hazardous liquid operators. 1 1 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: Yes, at intervals established under 150 ? 4 Section 11.5. 5 5 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 8#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 97 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, WV PSC used IA inspection forms plus targeted forms for construction and etc. 2 2 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, and question was added to internal inspection form. Reviewed form. 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Reviewed program managers data spread sheet. 2 2 10 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Reviewed NPMS with program manager during evaluation. 1 1 11 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: One conducted in 2017. 2 2 12 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 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: There were 3 days of OQ inspection in 2017. 2 2 13 Is state verifying operator's hazardous liquid integrity management (L IMP) Programs are 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? Are replies to Operator IM notifications addressed? (formerly part of Question C-10)). 49 CFR 195.452 Appendix C Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Conducted 2 days of inspection in 2017. 2 2 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 9#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 1014 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 be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 195.440 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Public Awareness program were inspected by 2013, none were scheduled in 2017. 2 2 15 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There is a formal case link on WV PSC webpage. 1 1 16 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: There was 1 in 2017, Blue Racer Midstream. WV PSC monitored it with the PHMSA Eastern Region. 1 1 17 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. 1 1 18 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. Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: West Virginia had 1 in 2017 - Public Service Commission of West Virginia Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. (UCC) 2017-0011 49 CFR 195.116(d) 02/27/17 19 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. 1 1 20 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site ? http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm Needs 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: Had discussion with program manager. 21 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) Has the State updated SICT data? No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Had discussion with program manager. DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 10#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 1122 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. No operator changed flow reversal. 23 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 43 Total possible points for this section: 43 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 11#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified - page 25 of Inspector duties and Responsibilities Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns - page 25 of Inspector duties and Responsibilities Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations -page 26 of Inspector duties and Responsibilities 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. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility inspected outlining any concerns; and Yes No Needs Improvement f. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? No violations found. Document probable violations - No violations found. Resolve probable violations - NA Routinely review progress of probable violations -No violations found. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility inspected outlining any concerns; and within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection - NA 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: None found. 2 NA 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 NA West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 12#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 13Evaluator Notes: No violations found, no compliances sent. 5 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) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No fines for hazardous liquids, but have issued fines to natural gas operators. 2 2 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No fines for hazardous liquids, but have issued fines to natural gas operators. 1 1 7 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: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 13#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 14PART 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: Section D of the Inspector Duties and Responsibilities, Part D - investigations of incidents, Accidents or Other Failures. 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. WV GPSD has a Emergency Reporting Number. 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: On page 29 of the Inspector Duties and Responsibilities. 1 1 4 Were all accidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review 3 NA Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: None in 2017. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: None in 2017. 1 NA 6 Did the state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the 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: None in 2017. 1 NA 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: DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 14#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 15Yes. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 15#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 16PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Question listed on Inspection Report Summary. 2 2 2 Did the state inspector verify pipeline operators are following their written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Part of construction inspection report. 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 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. 2 2 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: PSC does this - reviewed report. 2 2 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: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 16#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Markwest Energy Partners Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Ed Clarkson Location of Inspection: Bridgeport Date of Inspection: May 1, 2018 Name of PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 1 1 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: Uses IA Form. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 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: NA - reviewed records 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: Procedures 2 2 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 17#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, 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 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. 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: None found. 1 NA 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 18#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, page 19D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Liquid IMP Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 19#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 1 NA Evaluator Notes: 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 1 Total possible points for this section: 1 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 20#
WV HL Program Evaluation, 2017, 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: 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: 1 1 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: 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 1 NA Evaluator Notes: 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 1 Total possible points for this section: 1 DUNS: 134236632 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, 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.