RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA mi-2024-ungs-program-evaluation
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS for MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative, Dates and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- Program Performance D -- Compliance Activities E -- Incident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspection H -- 60106 Agreement UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 22024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS -- CY 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Agency: Michigan Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 04/14/2025 - 04/18/2025 Agency Representative: David Chislea, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, PHMSA Evaluator Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Dan Scripps, Chair Agency: Michigan Public Service Commission Address: 7109 West Seginaw Highway City/State/Zip: Lansing, MI 48917 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No 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 2024 (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 9 9 B Program Inspection Procedures 14 14 C Program Performance 34 34 D Compliance Activities 21 21 E Incident Investigations 13 13 F Damage Prevention 4 4 G Field Inspection 12 12 H 60106 Agreement 0 0 TOTALS 107 107 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Reviewed data and verified with PDM. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Use Pipeline Safety Database to track inspection days. 1 1 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Verified data with PDM. 1 1 4 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: actions. Reviewed data, no compliance actions issued. Do issue recommendations or concerns which are not considered compliance 5 Were Underground Natural Gas Storage program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, electronic records are kept. 2 2 6 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, verified with Blackboard. 1 1 7 Verification of Part 192 and 199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes have adopted regulations. 1 1 8 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Have listed accomplishments and planned goals. 1 1 9 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 4Evaluator Notes: No issues with Progress Report. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Does State have written inspection procedures? 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed 2025 MPSC Gas Safety Procedures which includes UNGS. 2 (Standard Inspections) Do Standard Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that ensure consistency for inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Review of Procedures, Records, or Field Items to complete a PHMSA UNGS IA Question Set (RESERVOIR or CAVERN) ? 2019.12.31) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA a. Pre-Inspection Activities b. Inspection Activities c. Post Inspection Activities Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section 2 of procedures include pre , post and inspection activities to guide inspectors. 2 2 3 (Integrity Management Inspections)Do Integrity Management Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that ensure consistency for inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Integrity Testing and Maintenance: Observing Integrity Testing (Tubing, Casing, Cement), reservoir integrity monitoring, & FLIR Camera inspections.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA a. Pre-Inspection Activities b. Inspection Activities c. Post Inspection Activities Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section 2, #17, pg 28 includes UNGS IM inspections. 2 2 4 (Design, Testing, and Construction Inspections) Do Design, Testing, and Construction Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that ensure consistency for Inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Review of procedures, records, and field activities to complete PHMSA UNGS IA Question Set (RESERVOIR or CAVERN CONSTRUCTION) ? 2019.12.31. Inspection activities for well design, drilling and completion activities, well workover, reservoir maintenance/repair activities, and abandonment (Plugging and cementing), temporary abandonment, and restoration.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA a. Pre-Inspection Activities b. Inspection Activities c. Post Inspection Activities Evaluator Notes: Yes, section 2 of procedures includes UNGS construction inspections. 1 1 5 (Wellhead Inspections) Do Wellhead Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that ensure consistency for Inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA a. Pre-Inspection Activities b. Inspection Activities c. Post Inspection Activities 1 1 Evaluator Notes: UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 6Yes, section 2 #17, pg. 28 includes wellhead inspection guidance. 6 (Drug and Alcohol Inspections) Do Drug and Alcohol Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that ensure consistency for Inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Using AI to complete the federal Comprehensive Drug and Alcohol program (Form 3.1.11). Includes time conducting joint inspections with other agencies for this type of inspection.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA a. Pre-Inspection Activities b. Inspection Activities c. Post Inspection Activities Evaluator Notes: Yes, section 2 includes D&A inspection guidance. 1 1 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 5 5 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Not Applicable = NA a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval per inspection unit) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident, Integrity Testing, and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (Geographic areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units considering integrity threats Yes No Needs Improvement f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, inspections will be conducted not to exceed 5 years. Risk and history of operator is part of the inpsection priorities. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MIPSC is mainly complying with Part B of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 14 Total possible points for this section: 14 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? Yes = 5 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 70.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.48 = 104.50 Ratio: A / B 70.00 / 104.50 = 0.67 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Time spent in UNGS Program is acceptable. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.3.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, PM has fulfilled requirements and knowledgeable of the UNGS Program. 5 5 3 Does State use the PHMSA Inspection Assistant (IA) program to document inspections? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, utilize IA for inspections. 2 2 4 Did records and discussions with Program Manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, David Chislea is knowledgeable of the UNGS program and regulations. 2 2 5 Did state respond to PHMSA's evaluation letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, responded within the 60 day requirement. 2 2 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports to verify inspections cycles are being met. 5 5 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, utilize IA to document inspections. 2 2 8 Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS 2 2 Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 8Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports to assure they were complete. 9 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 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes. 2 2 10 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, conduct D&A inspections. 2 2 11 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders regarding the inspection and enforcement program? (This should include making enforcement cases available to the public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, website has information. 1 1 12 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: No SRCR. 1 1 13 Did the state participate in respond to surveys or information requests from PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, work well with PHMSA. 1 1 14 Did the State forward any potential waivers/special permits to PHMSA for review prior to issuing them to operators? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: No waivers. 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 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: No waivers issued. 1 1 16 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MIPSC is mainly complying with Part C of the evaluation. UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Info Only Info Only Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 9Total points scored for this section: 34 Total possible points for this section: 34 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 10PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 Not Applicable = NA a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section 5 of procedures. 2 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 = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 Not Applicable = NA a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system (60105 States)? b. Document probable violations c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Evaluator Notes: Yes, there were no compliance actions issued but do issue recommendations. 4 4 Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement 3 Did State within 30 days of the end of an inspection conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the UNGS facility inspected outlining any concerns identified during the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, document exit briefing. 2 2 4 Did State within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes. 2 2 5 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: There were no probable violations noted on inspections. 2 2 6 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes. 2 2 7 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? (60105 States)? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS 2 2 Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 11Yes, PM eplained CP process. 8 Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations, violations which can't be corrected by other means, or violations resulting in incidents (60105 States)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Consideration is given when issuing or not issuing civil penalties. 2 2 9 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, have not needed to issue civil penalties. 1 1 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MIPSC is mainly complying with Part D of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 21 Total possible points for this section: 21 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 12PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, section 6 and 7 address incident investigations. 2 2 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, section 6.4 and 6.5. 2 2 3 Did the state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, had incident investigation involving Consumers incident in 2024. 4 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Incident investigation was made on only incident of 2024. 1 1 5 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 Not Applicable = NA a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Incident investigation was still open. 6 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? (60106 States forward violations to PHMSA) Yes = 1 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Have not issued compliance action for incident. 1 1 7 Did the 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? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: No assistance was requested but do provide PHMSA with any information when asked. 1 1 8 Does state share lessons learned from incidents with PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA 1 1 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 13Evaluator Notes: Yes, shared information during PHMSA UNGS meeting. 9 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MIPSC is mainly complying with Part E of the evaluation. UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 14PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state inspector verify UNGS operators are following their written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? (API 1171 Section 11.10 Public Awareness and Damage Prevention) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, all operators have a Damage prevention program. 2 2 2 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground facilities to its regulated companies? (Common Ground Alliance Best Practices, support excavation damage prevention legislation, etc.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, the state promotes best practices. 2 2 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MIPSC is mainly complying with Part F of the evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 15PART G - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Consumers Energy Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Ben Hinks Location of Inspection: Northville Date of Inspection: April 30, 2025 Name of PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Mr. Ben Hinks while he conducted a wellhead inspection of Consumers Energy Northville unit. Info Only Info Only 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, representatives were present. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, utilize form to document inspection and upload to IA. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? Yes = 1 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, operator had required equipment. 1 1 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state 2 2 evaluation? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA a. Procedures Yes No Needs Improvement b. Records Yes No Needs Improvement c. Field Activities Yes No Needs Improvement d. Other (please comment) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspectors reviewed the necessary records, procedures and a field inspection of the facilities. UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 167 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the underground natural gas safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Ben Hinks was knowledgeable of the UNGS program and regulations. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Yes, conducted an exit interview at the conclusion of the inspection. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: There were no probable violations noted. 1 1 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative Info Only Info Only description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Checked condition of facility piping, length of bolts, atmospheric corrosion, workable valves, pressures, security, and protection of facility. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
MI UNGS Program Evaluation, 2024, page 17PART H - 60106 Agreement Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Do not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Do not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 3 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Do not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Do not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Do not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Not Applicable = NA Evaluator Notes: Do not have a 60106 Agreement. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Do not have a 60106 Agreement. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 UEI: TNF7YJLAHGZ1 2024 Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation UNGS Michigan MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.