# 2019 WV HL Program Evaluation - WV 2019 HL Program Evaluation (West Virginia; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA WV 2019 HL Program Evaluation
- **title:** 2019 WV HL Program Evaluation - WV 2019 HL Program Evaluation (West Virginia; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2019-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2019 PHMSA hazardous liquid program evaluation for West Virginia.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wv-hl-program-evaluation-wv-2019-hl-program-evaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wv-hl-program-evaluation-wv-2019-hl-program-evaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wv-hl-program-evaluation-wv-2019-hl-program-evaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2021-04/WV%202019%20HL%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA Document Legend PART: O -- Representative, Dates and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- State Qualifications D -- Program Performance E -- Field Inspections F -- Damage prevention and Annual report analysis G -- Interstate Agent/Agreement States DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 1

2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: West Virginia Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No Date of Visit: 09/22/2020 - 09/24/2020 Agency Representative: Mary S. Friend, Director- Pipeline Safety, Public Service Commission of West Virginia PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Liaison, PHMSA State Programs Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Charlotte R. Lane, Chairman Agency: Public Service Commission of West Virginia Address: 201 Brooks St. City/State/Zip: Charleston, WV 25301 INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Evaluator Guidance for conducting state pipeline safety program evaluations. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2019 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). A deficiency in any one part of a multiple-part question should be scored as “Needs Improvement.” Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less than the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the appropriate notes/comments section. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and they OBJECTIVELY reflect the state's program performance for the question being evaluated. Increasing emphasis is being placed on how the state pipeline safety programs conduct and execute their pipeline safety responsibilities (their performance). This evaluation, together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments, provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 0 0 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C State Qualifications 10 10 D Program Performance 50 48 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 4 4 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 94 92 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 97.9 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 2

PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? Info Only = No Points a. Stats On Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 b. State Inspection Activity Data - Progress Report Attachment 2 c. List of Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 3* d. Incidents/Accidents Data - Progress Report Attachment 4* e. Stats of Compliance Actions Data - Progress Report Attachment 5* f. List of Records Kept Data - Progress Report Attachment 6 * g. Staff and TQ Training Data - Progress Report Attachment 7 h. Compliance with Federal Regulations Data - Progress Report Attachment 8 i. Performance and Damage Prevention Question Data - Progress Report Attachment 10* Evaluator Notes: a. Verified operators with Annual Reports and PDM. Info Only Info Only b. Reviewed WV tracking spreadsheet to verify inspection activity. c. Verified operators with PDM and Annual Reports. d.There were no reportable incidents in 2019. Verified with PDM. e.The number of carry over are increasing. Need to improve on the progress of issuing and closing compliance actions. There seems to be a misunderstanding on what types of probable violations should be counted on Attachment 5. In the future, the only Probable Violations that should be counted in Attachment 5 are Probable Violations that are issued to an operator in a non-compliance action. Probable violations that are found during inspections and are later, thru further investigation, considered as non-violations should not be counted on Attachment 5. f. The WVPSC lists all records kept by the state. g. Verified qualifications with Blackboard. h. WV PSC has adopted all federal regulations. i. The WV PSC lists accomplishments and initiatives in attachment 10. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 3

PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities 5 5 for each of the following inspection types: Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard Inspections, which include Drug/Alcohol, CRM and Public Awareness Effectiveness Inspections b. IMP Inspections (reviewing largest operator(s) plans annually) c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) Evaluator Notes: GPSD Inspector Procedures addresses inspection activities to guide inspectors. Section A-6.2 has pre inspection activities and Section C addresses Post Inspection activities. a. Section B has types of inspections which include standard, D&A, CRM and PAPEI b. Section B-5 addresses IMP inspections which give guidance to inspectors on how to conduct IMP plan inspections. c. Section B-4 and 5 addresses Operator Qualification inspections which gives guidance to inspectors when conducting OQ inspections. Section 5 addresses OQ Plan reviews. d. Section 5 addresses PAPEI and damage prevention inspections. e. Section 7.2 addresses the need for Operator Training. f. Section B-3 addresses construction inspections which gives guidance to inspectors to perform construction inspections. 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements and time frames established in its procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Length of time since last inspection b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Centers, etc.) e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Evaluator Notes: Section B-1 address inspection priorities which include a. Length of time since last inspection. Have a 5 year interval and 2 year for standard inspections. b. Operating History of operator is criteria for inspections. c. Type of activities undertaken by the operator(i.e. Construction, replacements, etc) is criteria d. Location of operator units is criteria. e. Annual report data and information which include damages, age of pipe, materials, etc. is criteria. f. Yes, units are broken down appropriately. 4 4 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified 3 3 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 4

b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section C Post Inspection Activities addresses compliance activities undertaken by WV PSC after completion of an inspection. The procedures address 30 and 90 day requirements and step by step actions to complete compliance actions. a. Section C-2 addresses the issuance of a compliance letter must go to a company official. b. Section C-3 specifically addresses the tracking of compliance actions. c. Section C addresses the closing of probable violations which may include follow up inquiries/inspections. 4 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/accident? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Mechanism to receive, record, and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports b. If onsite investigation was not made, do procedures require on-call staff to obtain sufficient information to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on-site. 3 3 Evaluator Notes: Section D has detailed procedures for accident/incident investigations and a mechanism to receive incident notifications. The WVPSC has an emergency number which is monitored 24/7 by the on call GPSD inspector, which is rotated on a monthly basis(generally) Procedures include the gathering of sufficient information to make decision to go onsite or not. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is mainly complying with Part B of the Program Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 5

PART C - State Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled training requirements? (See Guidelines 5 5 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 b. Completion of Required IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager d. Note any outside training completed e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, lead OQ inspectors have required training to lead OQ inspections. Reviewed OQ inspections to verity lead inspectors were qualified. b. Yes all IMP leads have required courses. Reviewed IMP inspections to verity lead inspectors were qualified. c. Yes inspectors have taken the Root Cause course. d. Appalachian underground corrosion short course has been taken by inspectors in the past. e. Yes verified that each lead is qualified to lead each type of inspection. 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate 5 5 adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Ms. Mary Friend is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. She has many years of pipeline safety experience. 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is mainly complying with Part C of the Program Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 6

PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time 5 5 intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) f. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) g. IMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: Reviewed inspection reports and Multi year inspection plan to verify that units are being inspected within the time interval established in the WVPSC procedures. a. Yes, standard inspections are conducted every two years. b. Yes, PAPEI inspections are being conducted per their procedures. c. Yes, Drug and Alcohol inspection are being conducted per their procedures. d. Yes, CRM inspections are being conducted per their procedures. e. Construction inspections are conducted as needed. f. Yes, OQ inspections are being conduected per their proecedures. g. Yes, IMP inspections are being conducted per their procedures. 2 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1. Do inspection records indicate that adequate reviews of procedures, records and field activities, including notes and the appropriate level of inspection person-days for each inspection, were performed? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Construction f. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) g. IMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WVPSC utilizes IA to document inspections. The WV PSC also developed forms for certain types of inspections. Reviewed inspection reports to assure forms are being filled out completely. 3 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 established in the operator's plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WVPSC conduct inspections to verify QO programs.. OQ is also discussed throughout the year when the occasion arises, such as, during quarterly meetings, when on construction projects, or other meetings with operators. An OQ field inspection is conducted during a Standard audit. DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 7

4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP)? This should include a 2 2 review of plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operator's plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the state's largest operator(s) plans being reviewed annually? Evaluator Notes: IMP inspections are conducted by the WVPSC. IMP is discussed through the year with quarterly meetings with larger operators or during meetings. 5 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA 2 2 that have been deemed acceptable response based on PHMSA reviewing these items during the evaluation process): Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third- party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617; and b. 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; Evaluator Notes: NTSB questions are documented in the operator description form which is periodically sent to operators for updating. NTSB questions are also discussed with operators during quarterly meetings and seminars. 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: NTSB and ADB questions are documented in the operator description form which is periodically sent to operators for updating. NTSB and ADB questions are also discussed with operators during quarterly meetings and seminars. 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to 10 8 resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? b. Were probable violations documented properly? c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations e. Did state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? f. Can state demonstrate fining authority for pipeline safety violations? g. Does Program Manager review, approve and monitor all compliance actions? (note: Program Manager or Senior Official should sign any NOPV or related enforcement action) h. Did state compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing, if necessary. i. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator outlining any concerns j. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. (Incident investigations do not need to meet 30/90-day requirement) Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, compliance actions are sent to company officials. Reviewed inspection files and compliance action letters to verify company officials. b. Reviewed inspection reports and probable violations are being documented. DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 8

c. The WVPSC still has delays in issuing compliance actions on a timely manner. Reviewed several inspection reports and found that it is taking several months to a year to resolve probable violations. d. There seems to be a delay in reviewing the progress and closing out probable violations. The WV PSC needs to improve on routinely reviewing the progress of probable violations to close out on a timely manner. e. There needs to be improvement on issuing compliance action for all probable violations discovered. Several inspections were reviewed and it was found that operators are given the opportunity to rectify the probable violations and thus not issuing a compliance action. f. Yes, the WV PSC issues civil penalties. g. Yes, all compliance action correspondence is signed by the Program Manager. h. Yes, the compliance process gives due process to all parties. i. Yes, the WVPSC inspectors conduct an exit briefing with the operator after completing each inspection. j. Yes, the WVPSC inspectors email the operator after completing the inspection with any issues identified during the inspection. The findings are discussed during the exit briefing. 8 (Incident Investigations) Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? 10 10 Evaluator Notes: There were no reportable incidents in 2019. The WVPSC has investigated incidents in the past and have procedures for conducting incident investigations. 9 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WVPSC received the letter on December 4, 2019 and sent response on January 10, 2020. 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Info Only Info Only Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: 2020 Pipeline Safety seminars were canceled due to COVID 19 considerations. 2018 and 2019 seminars were conducted in two sessions, one in Charleston and one in Bridgeport. DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 9

11 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only The WVPSC Inspectors review operator's procedures to document submission and records as required and document in IA. 12 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 WVPSC holds quarterly meetings with large operators and are available for smaller operators whenever there is a request. Have links on website which contains pipeline safety information. 13 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: years. There were no SRCR submitted in 2019. The WVPSC has procedures for investigating SRCR and have follow-up in the past 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; b. Operator IM notifications; and c. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mary Friend responds to surveys and information requests from PHMSA and NAPSR. 1 1 15 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There are no waivers issued to hazardous liquid operators in WV. 1 1 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, files were organized and are kept organized and kept in their Case Tracking System. Info Only Info Only 17 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT). Has the state updated SICT data? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 3 3 Evaluator Notes: SICT data is reviewed and updated each year prior to submittal. In addition, manager and director get updates each pay period for review. The WVPSC reviewed and made changes with updated information to give better representation of inspection days. 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Discussed Performance Metrics with program manager. Trends are on a lowering trend. Leaks repaired are up due to the DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 10

larger operators doing 390 replacement projects to replace bare steel pipeline with multiple leaks. This has made repaired leaks to rise. 19 Did the state encourage and promote operator implementation of Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), or API RP 1173? This holistic approach to improving pipeline safety includes the identification, prevention and remediation of safety hazards. Info Only = No Points a. https://pipelinesms.org/ b. Reference AGA recommendation to members May 20, 2019 Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: seminars in future. Try to get experts in PSMS to give presentations in Seminars. May make request to PHMSA's SME in PSMS to participate in 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Issues identified: Info Only Info Only D.7- c. The WVPSC still has delays in issuing compliance actions on a timely manner. Reviewed several inspection reports and found that it is taking several months to a year to resolve probable violations. d. There seems to be a delay in reviewing the progress and closing out probable violations. The WV PSC needs to improve on routinely reviewing the progress of probable violations to close out on a timely manner. e. There needs to be improvement on issuing compliance action for all probable violations discovered. Several inspections were reviewed and it was found that operators are given the opportunity to rectify the probable violations and thus not issuing a compliance action. Total points scored for this section: 48 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 11

PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the comments box below) Info Only = No Points a. What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) b. When was the unit inspected last? c. Was pipeline operator or representative present during inspection? d. Effort should be made to observe newest state inspector with least experience Evaluator Notes: Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics CO Inc. Virtual Public Awareness Inspection July 28-29, 2020 Edwin Clarkson, WV PSC Inspector Agustin Lopez, PHMSA State Evaluator Info Only Info Only a.Evaluated Mr. Ed Clarkson while he performed a virtual Public Awareness inspection. The inspection was conducted virtually due to the ongoing covid pandemic. b. Last inspection was 2019 c.Yes, the operator representative was present. d. Mr. Ed Clarkson hasn't been evaluated recently. 2 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector utilized IA form during the inspection and to document results. 2 2 3 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the inspection 10 10 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Procedures (were the inspector's questions of the operator adequate to determine compliance?) b. Records (did the inspector adequately review trends and ask in-depth questions?) c. Field Activities/Facilities (did inspector ensure that procedures were being followed, including ensuring that properly calibrated equipment was used and OQ's were acceptable?) d. Other (please comment) e. Was the inspection of adequate length to properly perform the inspection? Evaluator Notes: a. Yes the inspector reviewed procedures thoroughly. b. Yes certain records were reviewed by the inspector that pertained to Public Awareness. c. No field portion was performed during this inspection. d. No other type of inspection was performed. e. Yes the inspection was adequate in length. 4 From your observation did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Ed Clarkson demonstrated excellent knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 2 2 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 12

5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If 1 1 inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Clarkson concluded the inspection with an exit briefing. There were issues/concerns on the following items: 1. Records showing precautions taken to prevent ignition sources in areas with a potential for accumulating flammable vapors or leaking hazardous liquids 2,program define the combination of messages, delivery methods, and delivery frequencies to comprehensively reach all affected stakeholder audiences in all areas where hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide is transported 3.relevant factors considered to determine the need for supplemental public awareness program enhancements for each stakeholder audience along all pipeline systems, as described in API RP 1162. 4. program include a process that specifies how program implementation and effectiveness will be periodically evaluated. 5.audit or review of the public awareness program implementation been performed annually since the program was developed 6.effectiveness evaluation(s) of the program been performed for all stakeholder groups in all notification areas along all systems covered by the program 7. In evaluating effectiveness, was actual program outreach for each stakeholder audience tracked 8.the operator's program documentation demonstrate management support 6 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: Yes the inspection was performed in a safe, positive and constructive manner. The inspection was conducted virtually to avoid contraction/spreading of covid. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: regulations. Info Only Info Only Mr. Ed Clarkson conducted an excellent inspection and was very thorough. He is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 13

PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for 2 2 accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes an inspector, Mr. David Hancock. reviews annual reports for accuracy and has analyzed data for trends in graphs and tables. 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 2 NA determining root causes and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence? (? 192.617) Has the state verified that the operators have appropriately identified excavators who have repeatedly violated one-call laws and damaged their facilities. Have the operators taken steps to mitigate that risks? (? 192.1007) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Damage Prevention is handled by the Damage Prevention Board. We are currently encouraging operators to report pipeline damages to the Damage Prevention Board. David Hancock has been gathering and reviewing the Part D data of the Annual Reports. Further steps are ongoing to see how this will be implemented in the future. 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D ? Excavation 4 NA Damage? Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: David Hancock gathers and reviews Part D excavation damages for accuracy. Further steps are being undertaken to implement in the future. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. What stakeholder group is causing the highest number of damages to the pipelines? Operator, contractor, locating company or public. b. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to stakeholders causing the most damages? c. Has the state evaluated which of the following best describes the reason for the excavation damages; i.e., operator or contractor not following written procedures, failure to maintain marks, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools were required, failure to test-hole (pot hole), improper backfilling practices, failure to maintain clearance or insufficient excavation practices. d. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to address the causes of excavation damages? DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 14

Evaluator Notes: Data is available but the data on annual reports is more accurate due to WV 811 not requiring to report damages. David Hancock gathers damages from the annual reports as well. Steps are being undertaken to analyze data for trends and taking action to reduce number of damages. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WVPSC is mainly complying with Part F of the Program Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 15

PART G - Interstate Agent/Agreement States Points(MAX) Score 1 Were all inspections of interstate pipelines conducted using the Inspection Assistant program for documenting inspections. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is not an interstate agent nor has a 60106 certification. Info Only Info Only 2 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was notice of all Info Only Info Only identified probable violations provided to PHMSA within 60 days. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is not an interstate agent nor has a 60106 certification. 3 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was PHMSA immediately notified of conditions which may pose an immediate safety hazard to the public or environment? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is not an interstate agent nor has a 60106 certification. Info Only Info Only 4 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection did the state coordinate with PHMSA if inspections not were not included in the PHMSA Inspection Work Plan? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is not an interstate agent nor has a 60106 certification. Info Only Info Only 5 Did the state take direction from and cooperate with PHMSA for all incident investigations conducted on interstate pipelines? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is not an interstate agent nor has a 60106 certification. Info Only Info Only 6 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WV PSC is not an interstate agent nor has a 60106 certification. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 16
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 37352