Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA mn2009hlprogramevaluation
2009 MN HL Program Evaluation - mn2009hlprogramevaluation (Minnesota; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA mn2009hlprogramevaluation
MN HL 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 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for MN Office of Pipeline Safety 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 -- Accident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 1#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 22009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Minnesota Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/16/2010 - 08/20/2010 Agency Representative: Elizabeth Skalnek PHMSA Representative: Leonard Steiner, Dale Bennett (part F) Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Michael Campioin, Commissioner Agency: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Address: 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1000 City/State/Zip: Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2156 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes 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 26 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 24 24 C Interstate Agent States 6 6 D Accident Investigations 7 7 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 9.5 9.5 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 105.5 105.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 2#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 3PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 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 Hazardous Liquid and CO2 facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Hazardous Liquid facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Hazardous Liquid pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the Hazardous Liquid pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) 8 8 SLR Notes: 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 (accident criteria as referenced in 195.50? - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports) (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Minnesota has a full time "Duty Officer" system. 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety T & Q 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.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: April 2009 2 2 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 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.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvment = 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.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 7 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 3#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 4The commissioner will support the hiring of replacement inspectors, the required training, and Ms. Skalnak's or any inspector's participation on NAPSR or PHMSA support activites. Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year T&Q training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding T&Q courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all T&Q 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.11 Yes = 3 No = 0 SLR Notes: All inspectors have completed or are on a schedule to complete the required courses. 9 Brief Description of Non-T&Q training Activities Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: Attended Locate Rodeo, Nace conferences, MEA For Operators: Assisted Damage Preventation meetings and training For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: SLR Notes: 10 SLR Notes: Yes 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.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 11 SLR Notes: Yes Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 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.14 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 187.12 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.46 = 320.83 Ratio: A / B 187.12 / 320.83 = 0.58 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 SLR Notes: Inspection Days = 187.12 Inspections person days: 220X1.46=321.2 A/B=187.12/321.2=.58 13 SLR Notes: DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Question B.13 Info Only = No Points In conjunstion with the gas program, they have requested two additonal inspectors. 3 3 Info Only Info Only 1 1 1 1 5 5 Info Only Info Only Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 4#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 514 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 26 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 5#
MN HL 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) (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes 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) SLR Notes: 6.5 6.5 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 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: 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: 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.5 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.6 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.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 6#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 77 Did the state review operator procedures for determining areas of active corrosion on liquid lines in sufficient detail? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining areas of active corrosion) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: All pipelines are considered a risk to active corrosion and and of the accepted methods for identifying it will be used. 8 Did the state adequately review for compliance operator procedures for abandoning pipeline facilities and analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining compliance with abandoning pipeline facilities and analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: 9 Is the state aware of environmentally sensitive areas traversed by or adjacent to hazardous liquid pipelines? (reference Part 195, review of NPMS) Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Environmentally sensitive sreas are noted on the Minnesota pipeline mapping system. 10 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 195.402(c)(5)? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 11 SLR Notes: Compliance - 60105(a) States Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous Question B.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 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 C(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 13 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 C (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 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 C(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 .5 0.5 .5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 7#
MN HL 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 C(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 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 C(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 17 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 C(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 SLR Notes: No "show cause" hearings were required. 18 SLR Notes: Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question C(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 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 C(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 20 SLR Notes: Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question C(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question C(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 22 SLR Notes: Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question C(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 23 SLR Notes: 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 C(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 .5 0.5 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 8#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 924 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question C(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 C(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: 24 Total possible points for this section: 24 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 9#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 10PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use an inspection form that was approved by the Regional Director? Previous Question C(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question C(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 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 C(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 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 C(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 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 C(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 C(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question C(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 10#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 11PART D - Accident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an accident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question D.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 D.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of accident notifications received? Previous Question D.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 4 If an onsite investigation of an accident 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 D.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? 2 2 Previous Question D.5, , comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any accident investigation(s)? Previous Question D.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 1 7 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator accident (and forward to PHMSA within 10 Days per 195.58) 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 D.7/D.8 and A.4 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 11#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 12Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 12#
MN HL 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.12 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes, and MNOPS has sent an Alert Notice to operators about the unique dangers of trenchless technologies. 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.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: MNOPS gave presentations at the regional CGA meetings. 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 195.402 (c)(5)? 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: Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 13#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 14PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only Name of Operator Inspected: NuStar Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Brad Ardner and Jon Wolfgram Location of Inspection: Roseville, Minnesota Date of Inspection: 10/13/2010 Name of PHMSA Representative: Dale Bennett SLR Notes: Chief Engineer Elizabeth Skalnek was present. After completion of the records portion in the NuStar Roseville, MN office, the field verification portion began. Six (6) field sites were visited to include; the Burlington Northern take off valve site, 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 1 1 SLR Notes: The operator was notified about the planned inspection approximately two months prior to the inspection. The dates of the inspection was set two weeks prior to beginning the inspection. 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 E.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: The inspector used the federal inspection form for hazardous liquid pipelines. The revision date of the form was March, 2010. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes. The inspector marked the "check-off" columns for the results found on each item covered on the federal form. Any unsatisfactory results were described in the comments section of the form. 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps, valve keys, half-cells, etc.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. The inspector checked the equipment used to take cathodic protection readings. The inspector verified that the volt meter was properly calibrated. 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 Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: The inspector performed a standard inspection. The inspection covered activities of the operator since the last inspection was performed in 2008. 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 2 2 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 14#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 15SLR Notes: The procedures and records review was conducted on Monday. The inspector described the inspection activities conducted on Monday and the results of the review. On the day of observation, the inspector observed readings taken on facilities and the condition of pipeline facilities in the field. 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question E.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: Mr. Ardner exhibited a good understanding of the pipeline safety regulations and knowledge of the operator's pipeline facilties. 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 E.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: the inspection. Yes. The inspector provided a briefing of the inspection results to the operator and provided additional items that were needed from the operator to complete 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question E.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The inspector idenitified non compliance issues that were found during the inspection. He explained the regulatory requirements and cited the code sections that contained the requirements. 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: The inspector observed valve operating tests, cathodic protection potential and rectifier readings, atmospheric corrosion condition of above ground piping, line markers and signs and overpressure protection devices. Mr. Ardner was very thorough in his inspection observations. He conducted the inspection in a professional manner and treated the operator's representatives with respect. 12 Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: There were no best practices that were observed to share with other states or PHMSA regions. Info Only Info Only 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 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 15#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 16s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: Most of these areas were covered during inspection conducted the day of the observation. 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Mr. Ardner was very thorough in his inspection observations. He conducted the inspection in a professional manner and treated the operator's representatives with respect. He provided a clear and concise briefing of her inspection findings. Numerous concerns were identified with the inspection that was performed. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 16#
MN HL 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) 1.5 1.5 SLR Notes: 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 3 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 4 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: MNOPS uses the number of damages to loactes. .5 0.5 5 Has state reviewed data on Operator Annual reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 6 Has state analyzed annual report data for trends and operator issues? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 7 Has state reviewed data on Incident/Accident reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: The report is part of the investigation. .5 0.5 8 Does state do evaluation of effectiveness of program based on data? (i.e. performance measures,trends,etc.) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Minnesota has several parameters for evaluations which include, number of accidents, amounts damages, quantity of spills, injuries and fatalities. DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 17#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 189 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? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 10 Did the State submit their replies into the Integrity Management Database (IMDB) in response to the Operators notifications for their integrity management program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: No replies were required for this year. .5 NA 11 Have the IMP Federal Protocol forms been uploaded to the IMDB? Previous Question B.17 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 12 SLR Notes: Did the State use the Federal Protocols to conduct IMP Inspections? (If the State used an alternative inspection form(s) please provide information regarding alternative form(s)) Previous Question C(2).6 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 13 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 SLR Notes: MNOPS has a question on their inspection forms. .5 0.5 Accident/Incident Investigation Learning and Sharing Lessons Learned 14 Has state shared lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (i.e. NAPSR meetings and communications) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 0.5 15 Does the State support data gathering efforts concerning accidents? (Frequency/Consequence/etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: 16 SLR Notes: Yes Does state have incident/accident criteria for conducting root cause analysis? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only 17 Does state conduct root cause analysis on incidents/accidents in state? Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: They have not conducted a Root Cause Analysis in liquids. Info Only Info Only 18 Has state participated on root cause analysis training? (can also be on wait list) No = 0 Yes = .5 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 18#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 19SLR Notes: Yes Transparency - Communication with Stakeholders 19 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: Several methods for communications are CGA meetings, excavator meeting/training and tne MNOPS newsletter. 20 Does state share enforcement data with public? (Website, newsletters, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: MNOPS shares on a website. 21 Part G: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 9.5 Total possible points for this section: 9.5 DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 19#
MN HL 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.) Previous Question A.15 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: MNOPS dedicated much time to the inspection of the Enbridge pipeline. 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.) A.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Minnesota increased the limits for enforcement fines to be the same as USDOT. 3 Any Risk Reduction Accomplishments/Projects? (i.e. Replacement projects,bare steel,third-party damage reductions, HCA's/USA mapping, internal corrosion, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: MNOPS is examining for frost heave of one operator. 4 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Sharing Best Practices with Other States - (General Program) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Yes 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: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 20#
MN HL 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: 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: .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 SLR Notes: MNOPS is using MIS report forms for data. .5 0.5 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 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Has the state reviewed operator qualification programs for compliance with PHMSA rules and protocols? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 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: Protocol 9 inspections are conducted. .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: Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Integrity Management (49 CFR Part 195.452) 8 Has the state verified that all operators with hazardous liquid pipelines have adopted an integrity management program (IMP)? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 1 9 Has the state verified that in determining whether a plan is required, the operator properly applied the definition of a high consequence area? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: MNOPS is verifying liquid HCAs with their mapping system. DUNS: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 21#
MN HL Program Evaluation, 2009, page 2210 Has the state reviewed operator IMPs for compliance with 195.452? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 11 SLR Notes: Is the state monitoring operator progress on the inspections, tests and remedial actions required by the operator's IMP, which includes the manner and schedule called for in its IMP? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 12 Is the state verifying operators are periodically examining their hazardous liquid piplines for the appearance of new HCAs? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: A question about this is on all inspection forms. .5 0.5 13 SLR Notes: Public Awareness (49 CFR Section 195.440) 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)? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 14 SLR Notes: Has the state reviewed the content of these programs for compliance with 195.440 (by participating in the Clearinghouse or by other means)? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 15 SLR Notes: Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the public awareness activities called for in its program? Yes = .5 No = 0 .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: MNOPS is developing inspection questions. 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: 804886729 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Minnesota MN Office of Pipeline Safety, 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.