Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA co2009ngprogramevaluation
2009 CO NG Program Evaluation - co2009ngprogramevaluation (Colorado; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA co2009ngprogramevaluation
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Incident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 1#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 22009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2009 Natural Gas State Agency: Colorado Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/31/2010 - 09/02/2010 Agency Representative: Steve Pott, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. Ron Binz, Chairman Agency: Colorado Public Utilities Commission Address: 1560 Broadway, #250 City/State/Zip: Denver, CO 80202 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 2009 (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 certification/agreement attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART F): 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 F, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A General Program Qualifications 26 20 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 24 22.5 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Incident Investigations 7 6.5 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 11 11 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 10 10 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 99 91 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 91.9 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 2#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 3PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 8 5 1 Did the state submit complete and accurate information on the attachments to its most current 60105(a) Certification/60106 (a) Agreement? (NOTE: PHMSA Representative to verify certification/agreement attachments by reviewing appropriate state documentation. Score a deficiency in any one area as "needs improvement". Attachment numbers appear in parenthesis) Previous Question A.1, Items a-h worth 1 point each Yes = 8 No = 0 Needs Minor Improvement = 3-7 Needs Major Improvement = 2 a. State Jurisdiction and agent status over gas facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Gas facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Gas pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the gas pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: Attachment 1 numbers were not correct, deduction one point for a Attachment 3 numbers were not correct, not all direct sales were listed Attachment 5 numbers on state compliance actions were not correct. Advised they should take more time and spend time making sure these numbers are accurate and the importance of reporting. 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance with 60105(a) Certification/60106(a) Agreement requirements (fatality, injury requiring hospitalization, property damage exceeding $50,000 - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports)? (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety TQ seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if state requested seminar, but T&Q could not provide, indicate date of state request for seminar. Seminars must be held at least once every 3 calendar years.) (Chapter 8.5) Previous Question A.4 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: Previous was in March 2008, last in March 2010 2 2 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 0 SLR Notes: Although files were found, they were not all in one location, either electronic or paper. Files were not all in central location and complete and they need to find mechanism to consistently keep all files in one location and in their entirety. Discussed this and recommended ways they can help this process. 5 Did state records and discussions with the state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? (Chapter 4.1, Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: 6 Did the state respond in writing within 60 days to the requested items in the Chairman's letter following the Region's last program evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: No response was ever sent to letter from previous year as requested. 1 0 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 3#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 47 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the 1 0 previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8/A.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: The items mentioned in letter were not addressed and taken care of. Items mentioned about certification accuracy (Items 1&2) were not taken care of that addressed Attachment 1 and 3 on Certification. Also attachment 5 was not accurate as asked to do. Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year TQ training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding TQ courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all TQ courses, but are in a program which will achieve the completion of all applicable courses within 3 years of taking first course (5 years to sucessfully complete), or if a waiver has been granted by the applicable Region Director for the state, please answer yes.) (Chapter 4.4) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 3 No = 0 3 3 SLR Notes: 9 Brief Description of Non-TQ training Activities: Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: Info Only Info Only For Operators: For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: SLR Notes: 10 SLR Notes: Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q OQ courses and Computer Based Training (CBT) before conducting OQ Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.12 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 11 SLR Notes: Mark has taken required courses Did the lead inspectors complete all required TQ Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 12 Was the ratio acceptable of Total inspection Person-days to Total Person-days charged to the program by state inspectors? (Region Director may modify points for just cause) (Chapter 4.3) Previous Question B.12 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 5 5 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): Ratio: A / B If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 SLR Notes: DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 4#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 513 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Info Only Info Only Question B.13 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: All comments under individual sections Total points scored for this section: 20 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 5#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 6PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators including LNG) 6.5 6 (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes + Incorporate LNG Yes = 6.5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Standard Inspections (Including LNG) (Max points = 2) b IMP Inspections (Including DIMP) (Max points = .5) c OQ Inspections (Max points = .5) d Damage Prevention (Max points = .5) e On-Site Operator Training (Max points = .5) f Construction Inspections (Max points = .5) g Incident/Accident Investigations (Max points = 1) h Compliance Follow-up (Max points = 1) Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: Previous year evaluation indicated improved needed on plan for IMP inspections, this was not done. Overall procedure review is really needed. 2 Did the written Procedures for selecting operators adequately address key concerns? (Chapter 5.1) Previous 2 2 Question B.2, items a-d are worth .5 point each Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b History of Operator/unit and/or location (including leakage , incident and compliance history) Yes No Needs Improvement c Type of activity being undertaken by operator (construction etc) Yes No Needs Improvement d For large operators, rotation of locations inspected Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: Noted that this process should be described in procedures. Inspection Performance 3 Did the state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in its written procedures? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: All reviewed appear to be inspected in time 2 2 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.6 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 6#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 77 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) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Noted that these questions should be included on checklist. All NTSB and advisory questions should be checked as S/U/NA .5 .5 8 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) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 9 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) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Again, this should be listed on a checklist for verification. .5 .5 10 SLR Notes: 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? (NTSB) Previous Question B.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous 1 1 Question B.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Reviewed probable violations for CY2009. See B18. It appears information received was sufficient. Could use some work on overall process. 12 Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question D(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: They appeared to have steps, but process should be reviewed from previous question. 1 1 13 SLR Notes: Does the state have written procedures to notify an operator when a noncompliance is identified as specified in the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 14 Does the state have a written procedure for routinely reviewing the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(5)) Previous Question D(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 .5 SLR Notes: They need improvement in this process per question B18 to make sure no breakdowns occur in this process and that compliance actions and details are followed up sufficiently before closing the action. DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 7#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 815 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question D(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: All found appeared to have action issued. 1 1 16 SLR Notes: Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that prompt corrective actions were taken by operators, within the time frames established by the procedures and compliance correspondence, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? Previous Question D(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 17 SLR Notes: If compliance could not be established by other means, did state pipeline safety program staff request formal action, such as a "Show Cause Hearing" to correct pipeline safety violations? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 NA 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question 1 .5 D(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Improvement needed in this area. Resolution to violations did not appear to be totally complete before closing them. For example, violations were closed before field verification was completed to see if operator had actually completed the actions they said they performed. Thorough review is needed prior to closing out compliance actions. 19 SLR Notes: Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 20 SLR Notes: Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 NA 22 SLR Notes: Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question D(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 23 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.) Previous Question D(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 NA Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 8#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 9SLR Notes: 24 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 25 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 26 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 27 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only NA SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 22.5 Total possible points for this section: 24 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 9#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 10PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question D(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question D(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: 4 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.) Previous Question D(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 10#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 11PART D - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question E.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 1 2 Are state personnel familiar with the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6 ? Appendix D) Previous Question E.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of incident notifications received? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 4 If an onsite investigation of an incident was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information by other means to determine the facts and support the decision not to go on-site? Previous Question E.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? Previous Question E.5, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations and Document Review 2 1.5 b. Contributing Factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: covered appropriately. Part electronic files, part paper files information was not consistently gathered together. They should also used incident checklist to make sure all parts are 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any incident investigation(s)? Previous Question E.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Issued probable violations on 9/16/2009 incident 1 1 7 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 annual report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) (Chapter 6) Previous Question E.7/E.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 11#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 12Total points scored for this section: 6.5 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 12#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 13PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed 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? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: Reviewed procedures, this was on last page of standard checklist. 2 2 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? New 2008 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: 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? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Did the state review operators' records of accidents and failures due to excavation damage to ensure causes of failure are addressed to minimize the possibility of recurrence as required by 192.617? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: CPUC Does a good job in analysis of Damage prevention information and relationship with one-call system is excellent. no issues in this category Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 13#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 14PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: XCel Energy Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Steve Pott Location of Inspection: Winter Park, CO Date of Inspection: September 1, 2010 Name of PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans SLR Notes: This was observation of pipeline crossing bridge at Rollins pass, and new 4" steeel construction in Winter Park area. Info Only Info Only 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, operator was present. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an acceptable inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Previous Question F.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question F.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: 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.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 6 What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) New 2008 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Construction and Patrol Info Only Info Only 7 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) New 2008, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) 2 2 SLR Notes: DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 14#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 15Inspection was thorough. No issues 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question F.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: No issues 2 2 9 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) Previous Question F.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: No issues 1 1 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous Question F.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: No violations 1 NA 11 What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector Info Only Info Only performed) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Inspector observed pipeline crossing at Rollins pass and patrol of transmission line serving area around Winter Park. Also, construction of new 4" steel transmission line (approx 5 miles) installed to take care of pressure issues in the area during winter. 12 SLR Notes: Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points 13 Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) 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 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 15#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 16u. 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 E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: field Inspection went well. Good rapport and communication with operator. No issues. DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 16#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 17PART G - PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan Points(MAX) Score Risk base Inspections - Targeting High Risk Areas 1 Does state have process to identify high risk inspection units? Yes = 1.5 No = 0 Risk Factors (criteria) to consider may include: Miles of HCA's, Geographic area, Population Density Length of time since last inspection History of Individual Operator units (leakage, incident and compliance history, etc.) Threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Other Outside Forces, Material or Welds, Equipment, Operations, Other) SLR Notes: Database takes care of risk ranking, no issues 1.5 1.5 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 3 Consideration of operators DIMP Plan? (if available and pending rulemaking) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 4 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Inspections are adequately addressing risks in their systems. .5 0.5 Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 5 Does state use data to analyze effectiveness of damage prevention efforts in the state? (DIRT or other data, etc) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: They analyze data very well, intern hired over summer to provide data analysis .5 0.5 6 Has state reviewed data on Operator Annual reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: The intern hired last summer did quite a lot of data analysis from annual reports .5 0.5 7 Has state analyzed annual report data for trends and operator issues? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, see previous .5 0.5 8 Has state reviewed data on Incident/Accident reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 17#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 189 Does state do evaluation of effectiveness of program based on data? (i.e. performance measures, trends, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 10 SLR Notes: Did the State input all operator qualification inspection results into web based database provided by PHMSA in a timely manner upon completion of OQ inspections? Previous Question B.15 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 11 SLR Notes: Did the State submit their replies into the Integrity Management Database (IMDB) in response to the Operators notifications for their integrity management program? Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 12 Have the IMP Federal Protocol forms been uploaded to the IMDB? Previous Question B.17 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Ones participated in have been downloaded .5 0.5 13 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Previous Question B.18 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, their operators participate in PPDC .5 0.5 14 SLR Notes: No issues. Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) database along with any changes made after original submission? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 Accident/Incident Investigation Learning and Sharing Lessons Learned 15 Has state shared lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (i.e. NAPSR meetings and communications) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: They give report annually at region meetings, no issues .5 0.5 16 Does the State support data gathering efforts concerning accidents? (Frequency/Consequence/etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Their database takes into account data on incidents, etc. 17 Does state have incident/accident criteria for conducting root cause analysis? Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only 18 Does state conduct root cause analysis on incidents/accidents in state? Info Only = No Points DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 18#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 19SLR Notes: 19 Has state participated on root cause analysis training? (can also be on wait list) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: On waitlist Transparency - Communication with Stakeholders 20 Other than pipeline safety seminar does State communicate with stakeholders? (Communicate program data, pub awareness, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Through DORA Website and mass emails 21 Does state share enforcement data with public? (Website, newsletters, docket access, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Dockets are posted publicly 22 Part G: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 19#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 20PART H - Miscellaneous Points(MAX) Score 1 What were the major accomplishments for the year being evaluated? (Describe the accomplishments, NAPSR Activities and Participation, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Steve was on NAPSR gathering committee, Joe malloy was on PPDC. 2 What legislative or program initiatives are taking place/planned in the state, past, present, and future? (Describe initiatives (i.e. damage prevention, jurisdiction/authority, compliance/administrative, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: All amendments adopted. Nothing recent, but good previous Damage Prevention efforts 3 Any Risk Reduction Accomplishments/Projects? (i.e. Cast iron replacement projects,bare steel,third-party damage reductions, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Xcel continuing cast iron replacement. 4 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: They have cooperated and participated in all asked. 5 Sharing Best Practices with Other States - (General Program) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Through NAPSR 6 Part H: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 3 Total possible points for this section: 3 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 20#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 21PART I - Program Initiatives Points(MAX) Score Drug and Alcohol Testing (49 CFR Part 199) 1 Has the state verified that operators have drug and alcohol testing programs? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: On inspection forms 1 1 2 Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the drug and alcohol tests required by the operators program (random, post-incident, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, questions on checklist .5 0.5 3 Is the state verifying that any positive tests are responded to in accordance with the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel (49 CFR Part 192 Subpart N) 4 Has the state verified that operators have a written qualification program? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, on inspection form. Suggested they might want to think about doing full program reviews again 1 1 5 Has the state reviewed operator qualification programs for compliance with PHMSA rules and protocols? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: per checklist ok .5 0.5 6 Is the state verifying that persons who perform covered tasks for the operator are qualified in accordance with the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 7 Is the state verifying that persons who perform covered task for the operator are requalified at the intervals specified in the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management (49 CFR Part 192 Subpart O) 8 Has the state verified that all operators with transmission pipelines have either adopted an integrity management program (IMP), or have properly determined that one is not required? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 9 Has the state verified that in determining whether a plan is required, the operator correctly calculated the potential impact radii and properly applied the definition of a high consequence area? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 21#
CO NG Program Evaluation, 2009, page 2210 Has the state reviewed operator IMPs for compliance with Subpart O? (In accordance with State Inspection plan) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 11 Is the state monitoring operator progress on the inspections, tests and remedial actions required by the operator's IMP, including that they are being done in the manner and schedule called for in its IMP? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, they monitor progress, etc. .5 0.5 12 SLR Notes: No issues Is the state verifying that operators are periodically examining their transmission line routes for the appearance of new HCAs? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 Public Awareness (49 CFR Section 192.616) 13 Has the state verified that each operator has developed a continuing public awareness program? (due date was 6/20/06 for most operators, 6/20/07 for certain very small operators,6/13/08 for master meters) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: On inspection forms .5 0.5 14 Has the state reviewed the content of these programs for compliance with 192.616 (by participating in the Clearinghouse or by other means)? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: yes, previously through Clearinghouse .5 0.5 15 Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the public awareness activities called for in its program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, per checklist. .5 0.5 16 Is the state verifying that operators have evaluated their Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162? Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Discussed that this was next step to review. Should add to checklist Info Only Info Only 17 Part I: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 106621282 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Colorado COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 22#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.