Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA WV 2019 Gas Program Evaluation
2019 WV NG Program Evaluation - WV 2019 Gas Program Evaluation (West Virginia; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA WV 2019 Gas Program Evaluation
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2019 Gas 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 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 1#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 22019 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2019 Gas 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 44 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 4 4 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 94 88 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 93.6 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 2#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 3PART 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* Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: a. Verified operators with Annual Reports and PDM. WVPSC needs to include each system type(distribution, transmision, gathering, Master meter) as a unit (See Attachment 3 comments) and not combine as one unit. Currently, if an operator has both a gas transmission and a gas gathering pipeline system, WV combines the systems in some instances and counts as only a transmission unit or gathering unit, depending on the amount of pipeline each system contains. The comments in Attachment 3 explains the combining of different systems but in the future the units should be counting separately. See the Glossary of "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program" for the type of units. b.Reviewed WV tracking spreadsheet to verify inspection activity. c.Verified operators with PDM and Annual Reports. Some operators have different types of pipeline systems(Transmission and gathering) that come under one unit so only count as one type of system. See comments on section "a" above. 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 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 3#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 4PART 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. TIMP and DIMP Inspections (reviewing largest operator(s) plans annually) c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) g. LNG Inspections 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 and DIMP 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. g. There are no jurisdictional LNG facilities in WV. 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. c. Type of activities undertaken by the operator(i.e. Construction, replacements, etc) d.Location of operator units. e.Annual report data and information whcih include damages, age of pipe, materials, etc. 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 b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns 3 3 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 4#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 5c. 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 Evalaution. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 5#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 6PART 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 DIMP/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Completion of Required LNG Training before conducting inspection as lead d. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager e. Note any outside training completed f. 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 DIMP/IMP leads have required courses. Reviewed IMP inspections to verity lead inspectors were qualified. c. There are no LNG jurisdictional facilities in WV. d. Inspectors have taken the Root Cause course. e. Appalachian underground corrosion short course has been taken by inspectors in the past. f. 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 Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 6#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time 5 3 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. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: Reviewed inspection reports and Multi year inspection plan to determine if all units have been inspected within the time interval established in procedures. Found the following operator units that have not met the inspection intervals. a. Standard inspections- Mountaineer had some units that were not inspected within 2 years per their procedures. Ajax and Welch Gas Company did not have an O&M Manual inspection within the 5 year inspection cycle. b. Public Awareness have been inspected within the inspection cycle. c. Ajax and Bazzle did not have a Drug and Alcohol inspection within the 5 year inspection cycle. d. CRM inspections have been conducted within the inspection cycle. e. No jurisdictional LNG Facilities in the state. f. WV PSC conducted construction inspections in 2019. g. Ajax, Bazzle Gas, Consumers Gas, Standard Gas and Welch did not have an OQ inspection within the 5 year inspection cycle. h. Standard Gas Company and A.V Company did not have a DIMP/IMP within the 5 year inspection cycle. 2 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 10 10 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. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: Yes, the WVPSC utilizes IA to perform and document most inspections. They have state forms developed to document Type B Gathering , construction, and Master Meter inspections. D&A inspections are performed utilizing the PHMSA D&A Forms. 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: Covered during OQ audits. 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 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 7#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 84 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP and DIMP)? This 2 2 should include a 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? b. Are states verifying with operators any plastic pipe and components that have shown a record of defects/leaks and mitigating those through DIMP plan? c. Are the states verifying operators are including low pressure distribution systems in their threat analysis? 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 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 procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken; b. 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); c. Operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21; d. 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; e. 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; f. Operator procedures for considering low pressure distribution systems in threat analysis? g. Operator compliance with state and federal regulations for regulators located inside buildings? 2 2 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 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? 10 6 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 8#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 9c. 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. c. Although there has been improvement from previous years, 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? 10 10 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 9#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 10h. 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? 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. 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: review operator's procedures to document submission and records as required and document in IA. Info Only Info Only 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: DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 10#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 11Dow was issued a waiver in 2016 for installation of valves. There were no special provisions to follow up. No additional Waivers exist. 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, pipeline safety files are 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 state. Trends are on a lowering trend. Leaks repaired are up due to the 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 Info Only Info Only 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 Evaluator Notes: Try to get experts in PSMS to give presentations in Seminars. May make request to PHMSA's SME in PSMS to participate in seminars in future. 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Issues identified: D.1- Info Only Info Only Reviewed inspection reports and Multi year inspection plan to determine if all units have been inspected within the time interval established in procedures. Found the following operator units that have not met the inspection intervals. a. Standard inspections- Mountaineer had some units that were not inspected within 2 years per their procedures. Welch Gas Company did not have an O&M Manual inspection within the 5 year inspection cycle g. Welch Gas Company, Consumers Gas Utility Company, and Bazzle Gas did not have an OQ inspection within the inspection cycle. h. Standard Gas Company and A.V Company did not have a DIMP/IMP within the inspection cycle D.7- c. Although there has been improvement from previous years, 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. DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 11#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 12e. 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: 44 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 12#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 13PART 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: Dominian Energy West Virginia Virtual Standard HQ Inspection August 5, 2020 Jim Searls, Inspector, WV PSC Agustin Lopez, State Evaluator, PHMSA a. The inspection consisted of field inspection questions that are on a HQ level. b. 2019 c. Yes, an operator representative was present at the inspection. d. Mr. Jim Searls has not been evaluated in previous years. Info Only Info Only 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, Mr. Searls utilized an IA question set to guide him during the inspection. 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. The inspection only consisted of certain records that are on HQ level. b. Yes, he inspector adequately reviewed records and asked questions. c. There was no field portion for this inspection. d. No other type of inspection was performed. e. Yes ,the inspection length was adequate for this type of inspection. 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. Searls displayed knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 2 2 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If 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 1 1 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 13#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 14Evaluator Notes: Yes, an exit briefing was performed at the end of the inspection with no probable violations identified. 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 conducted in a safe, positive and constructive manner. The inspection was conducted virtually to avoid contracting or spreading the covid. 7 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Mr. Searls has only been with the WV PSC for about a year and he demonstrated knowledge of the pipeline safety rules and regulations. He reviewed records and asked questions of the operator to assure compliance of the regulations. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 14#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 15PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 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 an inspector reviews annual reports for accuracy and has analyzed data for trends in graphs and tables. 2 2 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? Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 15#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 16Data 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. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The WVPSC is mainly complying with Part F of the Evaluation Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 DUNS: 134236632 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 16#
WV NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 17PART 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 Gas State Program Evaluation West Virginia PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA, Page: 17#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.