RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA az-2020-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety 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: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 1#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 22020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Arizona Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes Date of Visit: 04/13/2021 - 05/31/2021 Agency Representative: Eric Villa Program Manager Pipeline Safety Section Arizona Corporation Commission PHMSA Representative: David Appelbaum PHMSA State Evaluator Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Lea Marquez Peterson, Chairwoman Agency: Arizona Corporation Commission Address: 1200 West Washington Street, Second Floor City/State/Zip: Phoenix, Arizona 85007 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 2020 (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 6 6 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 96 96 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 2#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? (*items not scored on progress report) Info Only = No Points a. Stats On Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 b. State Inspection Activity Data - Progress Report Attachment 2 c. List of Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 3* d. Incidents/Accidents Data - Progress Report Attachment 4* e. Stats of Compliance Actions Data - Progress Report Attachment 5* f. List of Records Kept Data - Progress Report Attachment 6 * g. Staff and TQ Training Data - Progress Report Attachment 7 h. Compliance with Federal Regulations Data - Progress Report Attachment 8 i. Performance and Damage Prevention Question Data - Progress Report Attachment 10* Evaluator Notes: All aspects of the PR appeared to be in order. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 3#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 4PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities for each of the following inspection types: Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard Inspections, which include Drug/Alcohol, CRM and Public Awareness Effectiveness Inspections b. IMP Inspections c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) 5 5 Evaluator Notes: The written inspection procedures are in the AZOPS Policy and Procedures Manual dated January, 2021. The Inspection Responsibilities and Planning Requirements; Annual Inspection Work plans; Pipeline Inspections (Pre-Inspection, Inspection and Post-Inspection elements) all meet the requirements of this question. 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements and time frames established in its procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Length of time since last inspection b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Centers, etc.) e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Evaluator Notes: Yes. Updated procedures (January 2021) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 4 4 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified b. delays or breakdowns c. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: Yes. Updated procedures (January 2021) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 3 3 4 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/accident? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Mechanism to receive, record, and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports b. If onsite investigation was not made, do procedures require on-call staff to obtain sufficient information to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on-site. Evaluator Notes: Yes. Updated procedures (January 2021) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 3 3 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 4#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 55 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Program made significant improvements with their procedures manual since last year. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 5#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, 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 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead b. Completion of Required IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager d. Note any outside training completed e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) Evaluator Notes: All lead inspectors in 2020 have met the TQ requirements. 5 5 2 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 = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 Evaluator Notes: The Program Manager, Eric Villa, has been with the ACC for 21 years, but only in the PM role since July 2019. Eric is clearly proficient with the Pipeline Safety regulations, and has a general understanding how to execute the administrative functions of the Program. 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points on Section C Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 6#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) f. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) g. IMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) 5 5 Evaluator Notes: Information provided by program manager and a review of information confirmed all inspection types were performed in accordance to written procedures. 2 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 10 10 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1. Do inspection records indicate that adequate reviews of procedures, records and field activities, including notes and the appropriate level of inspection person-days for each inspection, were performed? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Construction f. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) g. IMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: The ACC uses the federal inspection forms for its inspections. Upon a review of randomly selected 2020 inspection files all applicable portions of the forms were completed appropriately. 3 Is state verifying monitoring (Protocol 9/Form15) of operators OQ programs? This 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: 2 2 Yes, this is verified during all annual inspections, incident/accident inspection and verified while in the field. 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP)? 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 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the state's largest operator(s) plans being reviewed annually to ensure they are completing the full cycle of the DIMP/IMP process? Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is verified during all annual inspections. (Ref 49CFR195) 2 2 5 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA that have been deemed acceptable response based on PHMSA reviewing these items during the evaluation process): Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 7#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 8a. Operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third- party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 195.402; and b. Directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies; Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is verified during all annual inspections. 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this is verified during all annual inspections. 1 1 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to 10 10 resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? b. Were probable violations documented properly? c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations e. Did state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? f. Can state demonstrate fining authority for pipeline safety violations? g. Does Program Manager review, approve and monitor all compliance actions? (note: Program Manager or Senior Official should sign any NOPV or related enforcement action) h. Did state compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing, if necessary. i. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator outlining any concerns j. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. (Incident investigations do not need to meet 30/90-day requirement) Evaluator Notes: All requisite elements of this question appear to have been satisfied. PHMSA again recommends the ACC assess the deployment of its fining authority to enhance pipeline safety. 8 (Accident Investigations) Were all federally reportable incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? 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? DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 10 10 Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 8#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 9i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? Evaluator Notes: There were no Incidents reported in CY 2020. 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: 60 day requirement. PHMSA sent the ACC's Program letter on November 13, 2020 and received their response on January 11, 2021, within the 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: Last seminar was held in June 11 and 12, 2018 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: No apparent issues regarding this question. AR's and NPMS seem to align. 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: Yes, Arizona maintains a public website and maintains a working relationship and meets with the Arizona Utility Group. Arizona is a member of; the AZ National Utility Contractors Association, One call ticket resolution committee, Arizona Emergency Response Committee Advisory Board, the Arizona and National Common Ground Alliance. Arizona participates DUNS: 141953807 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 10 as a sponsoring member of the AZ 811 Alliance. Arizona meets quarterly with their largest LDC, Southwest Gas Corporation to discuss possible safety issues, ongoing maintenance, operational issues and vintage pipe replacement projects or other issues relevant to the safe operation of pipelines in Arizona. 13 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: No apparent deficiencies with this question. 1 1 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; and b. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: No apparent deficiencies with this question. 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 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 9#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 10Evaluator Notes: The ACC appears to be compliant with this question. They have enhanced (at PHMSA's recommendation) written procedures to ensure an appropriate review of waivers are conducted annually. 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Electronic files appear to be sufficiently organized. Inspection was performed virtually. Info Only Info Only 17 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT). Has the state updated SICT data? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 3 3 Evaluator Notes: Topic was discussed with Program Manager and State appears to be providing appropriate input and using the Tool properly. 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: All of the metrics are trending in the direction of improvement. It was clear from the discussion with the Program Manager and staff that the drivers of the trends are understood. 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: ACC has added a question to their inspection forms that satisfy this question. Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 10#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, 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 Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: On April 6, 2021, a virtual inspection of Plains LPG Services, L.P.. (OPID #26085) ROW in Goodyear, AZ. Senior Pipeline Safety Inspector Mike Bell led the inspection. The pipeline operator was present during the inspection. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes the inspectors were utilizing a PHMSA equivalent form to conduct the inspection. They documented the results and used it as a guide to complete inspection. 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: Inspectors reviewed procedures and records for the pipeline system. They concluded with a field inspection of the facilities. 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, inspector displayed a proficient capability to perform pipeline inspections. 2 2 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If 1 1 inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Observation (virtual) was limited, but from what could be seen, inspector did a good job describing observations and recommendations. 6 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 11#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 12d. Other Evaluator Notes: Inspector observed mostly cathodic protection inspections, to include rectifiers and casings. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Inspector observed an encroachment on the operator's ROW and did an excellent job addressing the threat. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 12#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 13PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: The ACC uses mandatory quarterly reports for leaks and accidents/damages from operators to track this information. It gives a good real time account of the information. They also review the annual reports to track new installation of pipe and services. 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: The ACC has a robust DP program which meet the requisite elements of this question. 2 2 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation Damage? Info Only = No Points a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: AZOPS has a robust DP program which meets the requisite elements of this question. Question N/A since HL, but similar assessments being conducted. Info Only Info Only 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. What stakeholder group is causing the highest number of damages to the pipelines? Operator, contractor, locating company or public. b. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to stakeholders causing the most damages? c. Has the state evaluated which of the following best describes the reason for the excavation damages; i.e., operator or contractor not following written procedures, failure to maintain marks, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools were required, failure to test-hole (pot hole), improper backfilling practices, failure to maintain clearance or insufficient excavation practices. d. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to address the causes of excavation damages? Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 13#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 14The ACC collects quarterly damage reports on damages from all operators (except master meters) and the information provided includes the number of tickets, number of damages and the cause of damages. This information is compiled by an assigned inspector and reviewed by the Program Manager. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 14#
AZ HL Program Evaluation, 2020, 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: Inspections are performed with in concert 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: No inspections were conducted independent of 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: No inspections were conducted independent of 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: No inspections were conducted independent of 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: There were no apparent deficiencies with this question. Info Only Info Only 6 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 141953807 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Arizona ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Office of Pipeline Safety, 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.