RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA al-2022-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for Alabama Public Service Commission 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: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 1#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 22022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Alabama Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 03/20/2023 - 03/24/2023 Agency Representative: Jonathan Kimbril PHMSA Representative: David Appelbaum Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Honorable John A Garner, Executive Director Agency: Alabama Public Service Commission Address: 100 N. Union Street City/State/Zip: Montgomery, AL 36104 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No 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 2022 (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 9 D Program Performance 50 50 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 6 6 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 96 95 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.0 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 2#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? (*items not scored on progress report) 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: Couple other minor discrepancies with notes reflected, but otherwise okay. PM had not provided a narrative in attachment 4 (Incidents) but will do so in the future. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 3#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, 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. IMP Inspections c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) Evaluator Notes: a. Standard inspections scheduled was in Alabama Pipeline Safety Program Operations Plan, revised March, 2022, Section V. Conducting Inspections: Sub-Sections A-H. b. DIMP inspections are listed in Section V. Conducting Inspections: Sub-Sections P. Appendix C - Item R. page 18 of PHMSA Form -1, Subpart O, Pipeline Integrity Management for IMP (192.901 - 192.951); Appendix C - Item A, page 2, para. 5. (DIMP) and para. 6, (IMP); Appendix C - Item Q, page 25 of PHMSA Form - 2, Subpart P, Pipeline Integrity Management (192.1001 - 192.1005) c. This item is listed in Section V (I). Training and Operator Qualification. d. This item is located in Section V (M), Damage Prevention Activities. e. This information is located in Section V (L) Operator Training f. This requirement is located in Section V, Subsection H. AL PSC has their own construction forms. All Alabama operators are required to file a construction notification to the agency prior to work being performed. This is a PSC rule. g. This information is located in Section V (O). All LNG facilities are inspected every three years. 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary 4 4 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: Located in Appendix D-Risk Management Assessments of Alabama Pipeline Safety Program Operations Plan information on risk management is identified. The document contains all the elements required to rank risk and priorities their inspection visits. Annual review of inspection units are conducted by inspectors and program manager. Inspection units were found broken down correctly. 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be 3 3 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 c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, this is listed in Alabama Public Service Commission procedure manual in Section S. Notices of Probable Violations Last Year's Evaluation Stated, "*PHMSA recommends the PSC amend procedures to specify operator notifications are specifically made to company officers/mayors as required by State Guidelines 5.1.5. Several instances were noted whereDUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 4#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 5probable violations were not sent to the appropriate officials. This is described in question D-7." It was expressly communicated to the PM at that time that the procedure needed to be corrected to avoid loss of points. Those corrections were never made and a one point deduction was made on the Gas evaluation. Will not take a point from HL since there's a new PM and HL had only one compliance action that was routed appropriately. b. Yes, this information is listed under section U. Notice of Probable Violation Tracking c. Yes, this information is listed under section V. Removal or Correction of a Probable Violation 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: a. Yes, this is listed in Alabama Public Service Commission procedure manual in Section S. Notices of Probable Violations b. Yes, this information is listed under section U. Notice of Probable Violation Tracking c. Yes, this information is listed under section V. Removal or Correction of a Probable Violation 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No point loss Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 5#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 6PART C - State Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled training requirements? (See Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.3 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: Yes. All lead inspectors and Program Manager have met the requisite training requirements. 5 5 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 4 Evaluator Notes: PM started as the Acting Director in October 2022. Though he's been in the job less than a year, he has displayed an exceptional ability on applying code and directing resources to specific needs. He has obtained a substantial amount of knowledge on the role of a PM in a short amount of time. He hasn't hesitated to seek help from his liaison when needed. However, since he's been in the position for less than a year, one-point deduction. 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No point loss Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 6#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 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 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) 5 5 Evaluator Notes: Using the random generator program, a selection of operators for CY2022 were determined across all types. All intervals appear to have been met. 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: A review of randomly selected 2022 inspection files found all applicable portions of the forms were completed appropriately, and all other requirements in the question appear satisfactory. *PHMSA had recommended last year the PSC add to the inspection form an area to ensure verification that operators are using calibrated testing equipment. A deficiency was noted in question E-3 last year. The PM has since embedded questions in the inspection form that resolves this. 3 Is state verifying monitoring (Protocol 9/Form15) of operators OQ programs? This 2 2 should include verification 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 Part 195 Subpart G Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A review of OQ inspection forms demonstrated the agency had verified the operator's plans were up to date and met federal regulations. 4 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 Part 195 Subpart F & G Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the implementation plans of the state's large/largest operators(s) being reviewed annually to ensure they are completing full cycle of the IMP process? Evaluator Notes: No issues a. This item is covered in their inspection form. Question no 16 on the standard inspection form was developed and used toDUNS: 961833431 Alabama 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 7#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 8check this item. A review of form confirms this was checked. Yes, a review of spreadsheet confirmed the larger operator's plans were checked annually via a question on the standard inspection that was conducted. b. This is addressed via question 41 on the standard inspection form. c. This is addressed via questions 42 & 16 c on the standard inspection form. 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 195.402; 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: Yes, these items are checked and found on Alabama Gas Field Evaluation Report and PHMSA Standard Inspection Report 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 Evaluator Notes: The advisory bulletins are discussed with the operator during the inspection and listed on the federal form. 1 1 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? 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: No issues on the HL side. 10 10 8 (Accident Investigations) Were all federally reportable 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? DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 10 10 Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 8#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 9e. 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? Evaluator Notes: Program has corrected deficiencies noted in several previous inspections. Record assessed for CY2022 appear to be compliant with PHMSA guidelines. 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, no issues 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: Yes, a 2019 AL PSC pipeline safety seminar was held in Montgomery, AL on December 3-5, 2019. Number of attendees were three hundred and twenty-five. Next seminar scheduled for December 2023 in Montgomery. 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 Some discrepancies but overall improvements made to reconcile databases. 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: This is accomplished through the AL PSC websites. Information about compliance and other safety items are listed. 13 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; and b. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: No issues found with regard to these questions. 1 1 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 9#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 1015 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: No issues for HL 1 1 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Program has made significant improvements to their filing system - no issues 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: A review of the SICT program was discussed and reviewed with Mr. Kimbral. He is familiar with how to make changes to the SICT numbers for Gas & HL programs. 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 Program manager is sufficiently versed with performance metrics found in PDM. 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 Evaluator Notes: This item was presented at the AL PSC Seminar by Steve Adam with Energy WorldNet. Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No point loss for Section D Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 10#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 11PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the Info Only Info Only 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: a. Hunt Crude Oil OPID (7660) and Hunt Refining OPID (26048), OQ Plan Inspection and OQ field Inspection PHMSA forms 13 and 15 b. OQ was last performed 10/22-23/2019 d. Inspectors this Inspection were Brett Cochran and Randal Hand 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: PHMSA forms 13 and 15 were appropriately used during 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: All requisite aspects of the facility and operator inspections were thorough and well documented. Excellent in-depth review was observed. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Inspector Cochran conducted the inspection and was supervised by Inspector Hand. Both inspectors displayed sufficient knowledge of the pipeline safety regulations, as well as a good command presence. 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: Exit interview was thorough and well explained. No issues 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 11#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 12b. 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 Evaluator Notes: All appropriate safety protocols were followed - no issues. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 12#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 13PART 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Generally, if annual reports have errors they are returned to the operator to make corrections. It appears each inspector now performs an analysis of the operator's annual report and discusses the results with them during their inspection audit. No issues 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 2 2 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: Question 5 on Alabama Public Service Commission inspection form address this item. AL PSC has recently added additional questions to the standard inspection form to address a more in-depth review of all these items. 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation Damage? Info Only = No Points 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: No issues Info Only Info Only 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: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 13#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 14All pertinent aspects of this question are checked and reviewed during audit reviews. 5 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: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 14#
AL HL Program Evaluation, 2022, page 15PART 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: AL PSC is not an interstate agent and does not have a 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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: AL PSC is not an interstate agent and does not have a 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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: AL PSC is not an interstate agent and does not have a 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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: AL PSC is not an interstate agent and does not have a 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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: AL PSC is not an interstate agent and does not have a 60106 agreement with PHMSA. Info Only Info Only 6 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: AL PSC is not an interstate agent and does not have a 60106 agreement with PHMSA. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 961833431 2022 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Alabama Alabama Public Service Commission, Page: 15#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.
195.402 · state program evaluation cites