Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA arog-2022-gas-program-evaluation
2022 AR NG Program Evaluation - arog-2022-gas-program-evaluation (Arkansas; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA arog-2022-gas-program-evaluation
AR NG 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 Gas State Program Evaluation for ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS 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: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 1#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 22022 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2022 Gas State Agency: Arkansas Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No Date of Visit: 10/02/2023 - 10/06/2023 Agency Representative: Gary Looney, Assistant Director- Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Evaluator- PHMSA Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Jerry C. Langley, Chairman Agency: Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Address: 100 E. 7th Street City/State/Zip: Smackover, AR 71762 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 10 D Program Performance 50 50 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 10 10 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 100 100 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 2#
AR NG 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 Info Only Info Only 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: a. Verifiied jurisdiction and operator data with state files and PDM. b.Verified inspection data by reviewing data files and inspection reports. c.Verified operators with PDM and state files. d. No incidents in 2022. e. Reviewed compliance data to verify information. f. Keep electronic records which are secured. g. Verified qualifications with TQ Blackboard. h. Have adopted applicabable rule amendments. i. Have performance initiatives stated which include: Incorporate the new Gas Gathering Pipeline Rule into our safety program and dvancing safety program by including additional inspections above the comprehensive inspections. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 3#
AR NG 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. TIMP and DIMP Inspections (reviewing largest operator(s) plans annually) c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) g. LNG Inspections Evaluator Notes: Section VI of the Arkansas OGC Pipeline Safety Program Manual has a list of all types of inspections. Section VII has inspections activities which include pre and post inspection activities. a. Section VIII of Pipeline Safety Program Manual includes standard inspection procedures. b. Section V addresses the IMP inspections. There are no current operators with HCAs so only perform Protocol A inspections. 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: Section VI of the AOGC Pipeline Safety Program Manual has risk based inspection scheduling based on type of pipeline, length of last inspection, pipe material, pipe size, leak history, age of pipe, incident history. Inspection cycles are conducted on an annual or bi-annual bases. 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: Sections XIV, XV, and XVI provide detailed procedures for actions taken if compliance issues are found during inspections. Civil Penalty options are not addressed in procedures. AOGC laws has description and laws in issuing civil penalties which will be referenced in procedures. Section XVI has follow-up procedures for corrective actions to avoid breakdowns and delays. Section XVI has closing out procedures that gives guidance on closing out cases. Section XV states that correspondence will be sent to company officials. DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 4#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 54 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state 3 3 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. Evaluator Notes: Section XII of AOGC Pipeline Safety Program Manual has Incident Investigation procedures that provide guidance to inspectors. AROGC incident response procedures were revised to include the mechanism utilized to receive and respond to notifications. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AOGC is mainly complying with Part B of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 5#
AR NG 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 DIMP/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Completion of Required LNG Training before conducting inspection as lead d. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager e. Note any outside training completed f. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) Evaluator Notes: Verified training with TQ Blackboard to assure inspectors are qualified to lead inspetions. 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Gary Looney is knowledgable of the pipeline safety program. 5 5 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AROG is mainly complying with Part C of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 6#
AR NG 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 5 5 intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: Reviewed randomly selected inspection reports to verify inspection cycles. Inspect units within the required 5 year interval. The AOGC has no distribution or LNG operators. 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. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed randomly selected inspection reports to verity completeness and verify that any issues identified are documented properly. Inspection reports are on website which can be reviewed by the public. 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 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed randomly selected OQ inspection reports. The AOGC conducts OQ inspections to assure operators are in compliance with the regulations. 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP and DIMP)? This should include a review of plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operator's plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subparts O and P 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? b. Are states verifying with operators any plastic pipe and components that have shown a record of defects/leaks and mitigating those through DIMP plan? c. Are the states verifying operators are including low pressure distribution systems in their threat analysis? Evaluator Notes: DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 7#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 8Yes, there are no operators with HCAs so only perform Protocol A (Implementation) inspections. 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 procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken; b. Operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance); c. Operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21; d. Operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third- party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617; e. Directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies; f. Operator procedures for considering low pressure distribution systems in threat analysis? g. Operator compliance with state and federal regulations for regulators located inside buildings? Evaluator Notes: AOGC utilizes an Addendum to Inspection Form which include NTSB and ADB questions to ask the operator during inspections. 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued 1 1 since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: AOGC utilizes Addendum to Inspection Form which include NTSB and ADB questions to ask the operator during inspections. 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) 10 10 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 8#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 9Evaluator Notes: Reviewed randomly selected compliance letters to assure compliance procedure are being followed. The AROGC documents and issues compliance letters within their requirements in their procedures. There were no breakdowns in issuing compliance actions in a timely manner. 8 (Incident Investigations) Were all federally reportable incidents investigated, thoroughly 10 10 documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? Evaluator Notes: There were no reportable incidents in 2022. The AROGC does have procedures which they follow in case there are any reportable incidents. 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: Response not required 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, conduct yearly seminar and also co-sponsor the LGA Seminar in New Orleans, LA. Info Only Info Only 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: Yes question is part of the inspection forms. Info Only Info Only 12 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 1 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: AOGC website has a lot of pipeline safety information including inspection reports. Very transparent and informative. 13 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 9#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 10Evaluator Notes: No SRCR in 2022. 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: Yes, respond to all surveys and WMS notifications. 1 1 15 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No waivers issued. 1 1 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, inspection reports are kept in the office and also online. 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 Evaluator Notes: Discussed SICT days and accuracy. No issues in meeting days. Discussed inserting details and risks. 3 3 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication Info Only Info Only site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Performance measures look very good. Staff is fully trained and inspection days look very adequate. Doesn't appear to be any negative trends. 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: Discussed in inspection addendum during comprehensive inspections. Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The AOGC is mainly complying with Part D of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 10#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 11PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the comments box below) Info Only = No Points a. What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) b. When was the unit inspected last? c. Was pipeline operator or representative present during inspection? d. Effort should be made to observe newest state inspector with least experience Evaluator Notes: Desoto Gathering Company Bryan Brown, AROG Inspector Damascus, AR October 4-5, 2023 Agustin Lopez- PHMSA State Evaluator a. Evaluated Bryan Brown conduct a records and field inspection of Desoto Gathering pipelines. b. Last unit inspection was in 2020. c. Yes operator personnel were present during the inspection. d. Bryan Brown is the only inspector with the AROG. Info Only Info Only 2 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, an inspection form was utilized as a guide and to document the inspection results. 2 2 3 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the inspection 10 10 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Procedures (were the inspector's questions of the operator adequate to determine compliance?) b. Records (did the inspector adequately review trends and ask in-depth questions?) c. Field Activities/Facilities (did inspector ensure that procedures were being followed, including ensuring that properly calibrated equipment was used and OQ's were acceptable?) d. Other (please comment) e. Was the inspection of adequate length to properly perform the inspection? Evaluator Notes: a. Only specific procedures were reviewed. The O&M Manual is reviewed during a comprehesive inspection in HQ. b. Records were reviewed in great detail. c. Performed an inspection of the pipeline facilities. d. no other type of inspection activity was performed. e. Yes, the inspection was adquate in lenght for the amount of pipe in this unit. 4 From your observation did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Bryan Brown was knowledgeable of the pipeline safety rules and regulations. 2 2 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 11#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 12Evaluator Notes: Yes, an exit interview was performed at the conclusion of the inspection. There were no issues identified. 6 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspection was performed in a safe, positive and constructive manner. Things observed were pipe to soil readings, operation of valves, ROW condition and signs. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Bryan Brown while performing an inspection of Desoto Gas Gathering systems. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 12#
AR NG 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 Evaluator Notes: Review Annual Reports with operators to analyze for any discrepencies or issues. 2 2 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 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: There were no excavation damages on jurisdictional facilities in 2022. 2 2 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation 4 4 Damage? Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: AROG has no distribution operators so there is no Part D date to review. The AROG does review excavation damages with operators if there are any in the year. Do check damage prevention programs to assure operators are in compliance with pipeline safety rules involving one call and damage prevention. 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? 2 2 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 13#
AR NG Program Evaluation, 2022, page 14There were no damages in 2022 so no damages per 1,000 locate requests. 5 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Although some of the questions don't apply to the AROG juridictional operators, the AROG still assure operators are in compliance with the one-call laws and the pipeline safety rules involving damage prevention. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION, Page: 14#
AR NG 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: AR OG 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: AR OG 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: AR OG 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: AR OG 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: AR OG 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: AR OG 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: NA 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Arkansas ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS 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.