Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ar2014ngprogramevaluation
2014 AR NG Program Evaluation - ar2014ngprogramevaluation (Arkansas; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ar2014ngprogramevaluation
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2014 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 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 22014 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2014 Gas State Agency: Arkansas Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/24/2015 - 08/26/2015 Agency Representative: Bobby Henry - Chief, Pipeline Safety PHMSA Representative: Don Martin and David Lykken 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 Street City/State/Zip: Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-4314 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 2014 (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 45 45 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 10 10 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 113 113 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: The information in the APSC's electronic system supported the numbers of operators and units in Attachment 1. Unit totals matched Attachment 3 totals. No issues were identified for authority or operator/inspection information. LNG facility was incorrectly stated as interstate by FedStar wizard. APSC to request correction to intrastate. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: The database that logs inspection information during the calendar year was queried and reviewed against the data input into Attachment 2. No issues or errors were identified. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No errors were found when comparing Attachment 3 information to the APSC's records. The APSC maintains an electronic database on operators and inspection data. 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: The APSC's progress report listed one incident during the calendar year of 2014. PHMSA's Pipeline Data Mart was reviewed. It contained one incident which matched the one listed in the progress report. No issues. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The spreadsheet is used to capture compliance information. The amounts in the spreadsheet matched the numbers in Attachment 5. No issues. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 The majority of the APSC's files are electronic. Inspection reports can be viewed by all stakeholders on the APSC's website. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Employee records demonstrated that the employee listing in Attachment 7 was accurate. Training was downloaded from PHMSA TnQ's SABA database. No issues. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues were identified with Attachment 8 information. DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 49 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 No issues with APSC's narrative of Attachment 10. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC has generally complied with the requirements of Part A of this evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: Frequency is determined by risk assessment model; however procedures state minimum of once every five years. The APSC's recently revised procedures contain additional language addressing Pre-Inspection, Inspection Activity and Post- Inspection work requirements. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Frequency is determined by risk assessment model; however procedures state minimum of once every five years. 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: 1 1 Frequency is determined by risk assessment model; however procedures state minimum of once every five years. 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 Frequency is determined by risk assessment model; however procedures state minimum of once every five years. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: On site operator training is scheduled as needed based upon changes in operator personnel. 1 1 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Construction inspections are stated in the procedures to be scheduled as construction projects are started. The APSC has notification requirements of its operators for certain construction depending on size and scope of the projects. DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation 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 Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: Criteria a. thru e. above are described in the APSC's inspection procedures. The length of time since the last inspection is used to place a maximum limit between inspections (Five Years). A detailed risk analysis spreadsheet is also used to adjust frequencies between the minimum intervals. Inspection units appear to broken down appropriately. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC has generally complied with Part B requirements of this evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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): 764.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 6.90 = 1518.73 Ratio: A / B 764.00 / 1518.73 = 0.50 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Ratio 0f 0.5 exceeded minimum. 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: At this time all of the employees listed on Attachment 7 are meeting the timeframes for completing the core classes. No inspections were identified where a lead inspector had not completed the required training. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: No issues were found with the Program Manager's knowledge of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Program or regulations. The Program Manager has approximately 30 years of experience in pipeline safety and a program manager for over three years. 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The APSC Chairman response was received 49 days after the evaluation letter was sent. 2 2 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Annual six state seminar was held July 29, 2015. The last in-state seminar was July, 2013. The next seminar is scheduled for July, 2016. 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 8Evaluator Notes: The APSC inspected more operators and units than required in its procedures. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: This issue is covered on question 3 of the inspection form's addendum. 2 2 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: This issue is covered on question 3 of the inspection form's addendum. 1 1 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: This issue is covered on question 4 of the inspection form's addendum. 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: This issue is covered on question 5 of the inspection form's addendum. 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: This issue is covered on question 2 of the Inspection Form Addendum. 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: The APSC reviews current annual reports against prior year reports and contacts the Operators when there are questions over the data. Data such as Miles of pipe, cast iron, bare steel, leak causes, & lost and unaccounted for gas are trended relative to prior years. The information is also analyzed to help assess the effectiveness of operator's Damage Prevention Plans. The information is posted in the Pipeline Safety section of the Comission's web site. Incident reports are reviewed for timeliness, completeness, probable cause, and completion of final report. 13 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Did state input all applicable OQ, 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 2 2 Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 9Evaluator Notes: Due to use of IA inspection forms for a portion of these inspections there are some that have not been uploaded. For those conducted on up-loadable forms were found to be satisfactory as far as being uploaded in a timely manner. 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: The Addendum page of the inspection form covers the submittal of information to the NPMS. The APSC has reviewed the NPMS and has not identified any information that was omitted by transmission operators in Arkansas. 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 2 2 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: Yes. This question is included on the addendum of the APSC's standard disribution and transmission inspection form. Inspection person days for this activity is accounted for in standard inspections. 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: The APSC did not conduct OQ Plan inspections during 2014. The Drug Plan inspections are on a five year schedule. The APSC has plan reviews scheduled in 2016. Verification of persons performing covered tasks and requalification intervals are reviewed during Standard Inspections. 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). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The APSC is meeting the frequency requirements written into its procedures. The need to verify operator activities on a continual basis. After an operator's program is reviewed there is a need to periodically review activities such as assessments (are they being performed according to plan), remedial actions taken if required as a result of assessments are just a couple of examples. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? 2 2 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). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P DIMP ? First round of program inspections should be complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The APSC completed its first round of DIMP inspections by December 31, 2014. The APSC has begun the second round of DIMP inspections with plans to conduct three to four a year. 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. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should have been completed by December 2013 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 The APSC completed all Public Awareness Program Effectiveness Inspections prior to December 31, 2013. DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 1020 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 APSC has a Pipeline Safety section on its website. The APSC uses the website to communicate important notifications for operators and information for all stakeholders. The website also contains copies of all inspection reports that be accessed by all stakeholders including the general 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 condition reports filed by an operator in Arkansas during calendar year 2014. 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: The APSC has had written communications addressed to operators and has also verbally communicated about the importance of identifying plastic pipe and participating in AGA's plastic pipe database project. 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: There were no known instances where the APSC did not respond to NAPSR or PHMSA surveys. 1 1 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified 0 0 conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate.(New Question for CY2013, no points until CY2015 evaluation conducted in CY2016) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC reviewed all waivers listed on PHMSA's website. PHMSA Regulations revised the listing to reflect information provided by the APSC. 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? (New Question for CY2014, no points first year) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Bobby Henry attended the NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in Springfield, IL. 0 0 26 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 0 0 site. (question will be rolled up and included as part of Question C12 on future evaluations) http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC Program Manager was aware of the Performance Metrics. There is a link on the APSC's webpage to navigate to the PRIMIS webpage containing the APSC's Metrics. Excavation Damage is a priority based upon the present metrics. The APSC does plan to develop strategies to improve the metrics. 27 General Comments: DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 11Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC has generally complied with Part C requirements of this evaluation. DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Total points scored for this section: 45 Total possible points for this section: 45 Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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 Evaluator Notes: The APSC notifies an officer of a private company and the appropriate official of a non private operator. The operator is given sixty days to respond. If the corrective action stated in the operator's response is acceptable the APSC issues a closure letter to the operator. If not acceptable the APSC provides notification that additional corrective action is needed. The APSC keeps a suspense file that tracks the response requirements from compliance notifications sent to operators. 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. Were probable violations documented? Yes No Needs Improvement c. Were probable violations resolved? Yes No Needs Improvement d. Was the progress of probable violations routinely reviewed? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports the APSC no issues were found with the items described in (a through (d. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports there were no reports with probable violations in which the APSC did not issue a compliance action. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports there were no instances where the operator was not given due process. The Commission's rules of practice and procedure allows an operator to request a hearing to provide its position on any issue. 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 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: Program Manager stated that incidents with probable violations resulting in significant damages and injuries, severity of probable violations, flagrant (repeats or non-responsive). The criteria is contained in Section XIV of APSC inspection procedures. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 1 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The APSC issued and collected $15,000 civil penalty in 2014 and was successful in terminating service through hazardous facility order. The APSC has issued and collected civil penalties in previous years.DUNS: 096796201 Arkansas 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 137 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC has generally complied with the requirements of Part D of this evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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/ 2 2 accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Section 9 of the APSC's inspection procedures cover incident investigations. All incidents meeting federal reporting requirements are investigated as they occur. The APSC follows the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident. 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: The program manager stated his understanding of the MOU between the NTSB and PHMSA. His understanding is consistent with the language contained in the MOU. He also understands the cooperation between PHMSA and a state program in investigating incidents as outlined in the appendices of the Guidelines. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The one incident in 2014 was investigated onsite. 1 NA 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: Yes, the APSC's report covered all three portions stated in (a through (c. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident 1 1 investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Issued compliance action on operator whose contractor damaged the operator's pipeline. The APSC compliance action caused the operator to spend $50,000 to purchase four ground penetrating radar units for pipeline locating in Pulaski, Gardner and Faulkner counties. 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: No instances identified where the APSC did not assist the region office appropriately. 1 1 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: This incident was shared with other program managers during the 2015 NAPSR Southwest Region meeting and six state joint Pipeline Safety Seminar in New Orleans. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC has generally complied with the requirements of Part E of this evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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 APSC addresses the risk of trenchless excavation with operators when covering the items in its inspection form addendum. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written 2 2 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: The APSC uses the federal forms for standard inspections. This requirement is covered on the federal form for procedures and records. 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: The APSC has encouraged through banners on website, Governor's proclamation, press releases announcing April as National Safe Digging Month, and presentations at various meetings. The APSC was instrumental in getting legislative changes to remove all exemptions in damage prevention law. 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: The APSC publishes a report illustrating metrics on damages, number of tickets and damages per 1000 tickets. It should be noted that the total number of locate tickets from 2013 to 2014. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC has generally complied with the requirements of Part F of this evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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 Arkansas Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Jason Dunham Location of Inspection: Hot Springs, AR Date of Inspection: March 3-4, 2015 Name of PHMSA Representative: Don Martin Evaluator Notes: The APSC conducted a standard inspection on CenterPoint Energy Arkansas's Hot Springs Inspection Unit. The evaluation observation covered two days of a multiple day inspection. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be 1 1 present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, representatives of CenterPoint Energy Arkansas was present during the inspection. The operator was given over two weeks notice of the inspection. 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. The federal form was used. The inspector used the form to guide his inspection. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Documentation was appropriate and comprehensive. 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: All testing equipment was reviewed by the inspector. 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: place. The inspector covered all aspects of a standard inspection but the observation did not cover the entire time the inspection took DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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: No issues were identified with the inspector's knowledge. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes for the time period that the observation took place. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No issues with this requirement. 1 1 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 D. Valve Maintenance Info Only Info Only DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 19E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: The inspection covered all requirements related to a standard inspection. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 096796201 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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 APSC 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 APSC 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 APSC 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 APSC 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 APSC 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 APSC 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 APSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC 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 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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 APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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 APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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 APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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 APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 The APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 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 APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The APSC does not have a Section 60106 agreement with PHMSA. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 096796201 2014 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.