Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ar-2016-gas-program-evaluation
2016 AR NG Program Evaluation - ar-2016-gas-program-evaluation (Arkansas; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ar-2016-gas-program-evaluation
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation for ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- Program Performance D -- Compliance Activities E -- Incident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 22016 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2016 Gas State Agency: Arkansas Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 10/16/2017 - 10/20/2017 Agency Representative: Robert Henry, Chief, Pipeline Safety PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Programs Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Ted J. Thomas, Chairman Agency: Arkansas Public Service Commission Address: 1000 Center City/State/Zip: Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2016 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 46 46 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 11 11 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 115 115 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed AR PSC database and annual reports in PDM. There is one operator, Logan Township Gas Users Association that did not have an annual report in PDM. The AR PSC has their annual report and sent it to PHMSA to submit into PDM. This has been done in the past several years. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed Progress report and AR PSC database to verify the accuracy. The total number of inspection days were accurate with no issues. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed AR PSC operator list and compared with annual reports and PDM. There was just one missing operator in PDM but the AR PSC is aware and have sent PHMSA the annual report. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: There were three reports in PDM but two of them did not meet the reportable criteria. There is one report that met the reportable criteria, over $50,000 that was not in the Progress Report. The incident was caused by a backhoe running over a pipeline and breaking a tee which ignited and burned the backhoe. There was no excavation involved just the weight of the backhoe caused the break of the pipeline. The PSC submitted the report to Fedstar during the evaluation. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified compliance activities with the AR PSC. The total number of carry over did not add up correctly with the total found and carry over from the previous year. The correct number is 68 which was verified during the evaluation. It was most likely due to a typing error when transferring over the numbers form database to the Progress Report. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, program files are kept electronically in their database along with hard copies. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Verified training by personnel on SABA and AR PSC spreadsheet. All inspectors except one new inspector are qualified. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 1 1 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 4Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Have adopted all regulations except 26-80R 168 and 25-80 FR 168 as of 2016. The changes were adopted in 2017 which will show as adopted in next year's Progress Report. 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in 1 1 detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Work with operators on Cast iron pipeline replacement. There will be no more cast iron in Arkansas when the final 3 miles of cast iron is replaced this year. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Arkansas PSC is mainly meeting the requirements of Part A of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 2 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Procedures are in place to give guidance to the inspectors. There is a pre and post inspection activities section which explains what to do before and after an inspection. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Procedures include IMP and DIMP inspection to give the inspectors guidance on performing an inspection. 1 1 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: OQ procedures are in place to give guidance to the inspectors while conducting an OQ inspection. 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post- inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Damage Prevention procedures are in place to give guidance to inspectors while performing Damage Prevention inspections. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as 1 1 needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Procedures are in place for Operator Training. the AR PSC only conducts operator training if it is requested by an operator. 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC procedures include construction inspections to give guidance to the inspectors. 1 1 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 6b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Yes No Needs Improvement Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Inspection intervals is 5 years. b. Operator history is included as part of their inspection plan. c. Type of activities being undertaken is considered for inspection planning. d. The location of the units is taken under consideration for the inspection planning. e. The procedures include high risk inspection ranking which considers excavation damages, corrosion, natural forces and defects. f. Yes, inspection units are broken down by size, operator office location and record location. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is mainly complying with Part B of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? (Director of State Programs may modify with just cause) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 755.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 6.63 = 1459.33 Ratio: A / B 755.00 / 1459.33 = 0.52 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC met the total inspection person-days ratio. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, verified that any lead inspectors were qualified to lead inspections. b. Yes, reviewed DIMP/IMP inspection reports to verify inspectors are qualified. c. Yes, almost all inspectors have completed the Root Cause course. d. No outside training was taken by any inspectors in 2016. e. Yes, reviewed inspection reports to verify qualifications of lead inspectors. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Henry is very knowledgeable of the PHMSA program and regulations. 2 2 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: There was no response required by the Chairman. 2 NA 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 1 1 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, co-host a seminar with Louisiana in 2016 and have many operator personnel attend from Arkansas. Last seminar was in August 8-12, 2016. DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 86 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports to verify time intervals between each type of inspection. 5 5 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 2 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC utilizes the PHMSA forms to document inspections. Reviewed inspection reports to assure all questions are being answered that pertain to a certain inspection. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was 1 1 examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Centerpoint Energy is the only operator with cast iron. All cast iron will be gone by the end of 2018. Centerpoint is replacing the last 3 miles. 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC verifies operators have procedures for cast iron surveillance. 1 1 10 Did the state review 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? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC reviews the operator emergency response procedures during their inspections. 1 1 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC reviews operator accidents and failures records for operator response per 192.617. 1 1 12 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC reviews annual reports and incidents reports for accuracy and analyze for trends. Trends are on their website for the public to view. DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 913 Did state input all applicable OQ, DIMP/IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, reviewed Databases to verify the inspection results are being uploaded. 14 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the PHMSA form covers the information of the NPMS submittals. 1 1 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, the AR PSC conducts drug and alcohol inspections to verify operators are conducting drug and alcohol testing. 16 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 2 2 of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC conducted OQ inspection in 2016 to verify operator OQ programs and verify personnel qualifications. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 2 up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC conducted IMP inspections in 2016 to review IMP plans. Reviewed inspection reports to verify inspections. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P DIMP ? First round of program inspections should have been complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC conducted DIMP inspections in 2016. There was a total of 15 DIMP inspector days. 2 2 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should have been completed by December 2013. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 192.616 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 10Completed all PAPEI in 2013. Review Public Awareness programs to assure compliance with 192. 616. 20 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: Yes, the AR PSC public website is a mechanism to communicate with stakeholders. Their website has a lot of information that is available to the public. 21 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were no Safety Related conditions filed in 2016. 1 NA 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Have a replacement program with operators to submit annual reports to the AR PSC with the total number of type of pipelines. Have included vintage pipe as a reportable type of pipe. 23 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, participated in 2016 NAPSR Surveys and responded to PHMSA requests. 1 1 24 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. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: There are no waivers that have been issued. Closed out the last waiver issued in 2011. 1 1 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Henry attended the 2016 National NAPSR Board Meeting. 1 1 26 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Discussed the performance metrics with Mr. Bobby Henry. There was a concern on the high number of Damages per 1,000 tickets, which is around 9. The AR PSC is working with an operator to reduce the number of excavation damages which is working. The operator works more with excavators and local officials to train, educate and work with contractors to follow the one call laws. The AR PSC will incorporate the other operators to do the same with the contractors. DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 1127 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Info Only Info Only Inspection Day Calculation Tool. (No points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Reviewed the State Inspection Day Calculation Tool results and discussed with Bobby Henry. The AR PSC does not foresee any issues with the number of inspector days calculated by the tool. 28 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 (No Points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Discussed with AR PSC and added question to their inspection form. Info Only Info Only 29 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is mainly complying with Part C of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 46 Total possible points for this section: 46 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Section III of procedures has steps to notify operator. b. Section III and IV has procedures for progress of compliance actions to prevent breakdowns. c. Section III has procedures to close out probable violations. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 4 document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Document probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement c. Resolve probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement e. Were applicable civil penalties outlined in correspondence with operator(s) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Yes correspondence is sent to company officials. b. Yes, reviewed inspection reports to verify probable violations are documented. c. Yes, reviewed inspection report files to verify the resolution of probable violations. d. Yes, progress of probable violations are documented. e. Yes, civil penalties were issued in accordance to procedures and their laws. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed files and all probable violations were issued compliance actions. 2 2 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, compliance actions procedures give reasonable due process to all parties. 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the program manager is familiar with the state's process for imposing civil penalties. 2 2 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 13Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC issued civil penalties in 2016 which demonstrates their fining authority. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is mainly complying with Part D of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section IX has procedures addressing state actions for incidents. 2 2 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 incidents, including after-hours reports? And did state keep adequate records of Incident/ Accident notifications received? Chapter 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Acknowledgement of MOU between NTSB and PHMSA (Appendix D) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Acknowledgement of Federal/State Cooperation in case of incident/accident (Appendix E) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, the PSC has procedures/mechanism to receive and respond to incident notifications. a. Yes the PSC is aware of the MOU between NTSB and PHMSA. b. Yes, the PSC is aware of the federal/State cooperation in case of an incident. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were 3 reportable incidents in PDM. The AR PSC was aware of all three and investigated all three. All three were reportable due to meeting the damage value. There were no on-site investigations conducted. The PSC made decision not to go on site after gathering enough data about the incidents. 4 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: There were no on site investigations. The PSC gathered enough data about the incidents to decide not to go onsite. Incident data was gathered and documented. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 There was a compliance action issued due to an incident in 2015 but the civil penalty was collected in 2016. 6 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There was no assistance requested from the PHMSA SW Region in 2016. 1 1 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 157 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: 1 1 at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC shares incident/accident lessons learned during the State of the State presentations at the NAPSR Region Meeting. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is mainly complying with Part E of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 16PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or 2 2 its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC inspection form has directional drilling/boring questions to verify that operators have procedures during boring activities. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, the AR PSC reviews the operator procedures and records during inspections and damage prevention/ 3rd party incidents. 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 2 2 facilities to its regulated companies? (i.e. such as promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices encouraging adoption of the 9 Elements, etc.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the AR PSC is involved with promoting damage prevention throughout the state. Attend meeting and seminars to promote one call and 811. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated 2 2 trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: AR PSC mainly uses the operators data submittal to trend for damages per 1,000 locates. Data is analyzed and is put on the website. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is generally complying with Part F of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Centerpoint Energy Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: John Ray, Inspector Location of Inspection: Little Rock, AR Date of Inspection: October 19, 2017 Name of PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Programs Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Mr. John Ray conduct an inspection of Ceterpoint Energy Little Rock distribution system. He was performing a field inspection of the cathodic protection, atmospheric corrosion and patrolling. He verified the cp readings with his own half cell and compared with operator readings. Mr. Ray is very knowledgeable of the Pipeline Safety Rules and Regulations. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The operator was notified with enough time to allow any representative to be present at the inspection. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. John Ray utilizes his inspection form as a guide during the inspection. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector documents the results of the inspection on his notes and on the inspection form. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector verified the operator had the proper equipment to perform the tasks being inspected. 1 1 2 2 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector had copies of the operator's records to verify the previous CP readings. He also had copy of the procedures and OQ task. DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 187 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. John Ray is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the 1 1 interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector conducted an exit interview with the operator for the day. He will also conduct a final exit interview when he completes the inspection of the entire unit. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the 1 1 inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes the inspector notified the operator of any issues found during the inspection. He discussed low pipe to soil readings found during the inspection. 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping Info Only Info Only DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 19D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Mr. John Ray inspected the operator's cathodic protection system by taking pipe to soil readings. He also examined the ROW and checked for atmospheric corrosion. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 20PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 4 Were probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC is not an Interstate Agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2016, page 21PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 3 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AR PSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 096796201 2016 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.