Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA MN 2019 Gas Program Evaluation
2019 MN NG Program Evaluation - MN 2019 Gas Program Evaluation (Minnesota; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA MN 2019 Gas Program Evaluation
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation for Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety Document Legend PART: O -- Representative, Dates and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- State Qualifications D -- Program Performance E -- Field Inspections F -- Damage prevention and Annual report analysis G -- Interstate Agent/Agreement States DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 1#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 22019 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2019 Gas State Agency: Minnesota Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/26/2020 - 10/01/2020 Agency Representative: John Wolfgram, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: John Harrington, Commissioner Agency: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Address: 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1000 City/State/Zip: St. Paul, MN 55101 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes 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 2019 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). A deficiency in any one part of a multiple-part question should be scored as “Needs Improvement.” Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less than the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the appropriate notes/comments section. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and they OBJECTIVELY reflect the state's program performance for the question being evaluated. Increasing emphasis is being placed on how the state pipeline safety programs conduct and execute their pipeline safety responsibilities (their performance). This evaluation, together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments, provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 0 0 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C State Qualifications 10 10 D Program Performance 50 50 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 4 4 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 94 94 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 2#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points a. Stats On Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 b. State Inspection Activity Data - Progress Report Attachment 2 c. List of Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 3* d. Incidents/Accidents Data - Progress Report Attachment 4* e. Stats of Compliance Actions Data - Progress Report Attachment 5* f. List of Records Kept Data - Progress Report Attachment 6 * g. Staff and TQ Training Data - Progress Report Attachment 7 h. Compliance with Federal Regulations Data - Progress Report Attachment 8 i. Performance and Damage Prevention Question Data - Progress Report Attachment 10* Evaluator Notes: a. though i. The information was reviewed during evaluation and all information reported on the progress report appears accurate. No issues. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 3#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 4PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities for each of the following inspection types: Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard Inspections, which include Drug/Alcohol, CRM and Public Awareness Effectiveness Inspections b. TIMP and DIMP Inspections (reviewing largest operator(s) plans annually) c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) g. LNG Inspections Evaluator Notes: a-g. All areas are covered in Section 5 (primarily 5.2) of Program Procedures. LNG Specifically 5.2.11 5 5 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements and time frames established in its procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Length of time since last inspection b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Centers, etc.) e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? 4 4 Evaluator Notes: No issues. Section 12.1 Inspection Planning of their program procedures. No issues and units do appear to be broken down correctly. 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: Section 5.3 of Program Procedures. No issues. 3 3 4 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/accident? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Mechanism to receive, record, and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports b. If onsite investigation was not made, do procedures require on-call staff to obtain sufficient information to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on-site. Evaluator Notes: Section 6 of program procedures. All elements appear covered. No issues. DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation 3 3 Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 4#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 55 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues. Procedures pretty much mirror state guidelines with program specific detail. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 5#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 6PART C - State Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled training requirements? (See Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead b. Completion of Required DIMP/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Completion of Required LNG Training before conducting inspection as lead d. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager e. Note any outside training completed f. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) Evaluator Notes: All areas relating to training appear to be met and no issues found. 5 5 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: No issues. 5 5 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 6#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: Reviewed inspection summary and validated with operator list. All operators appear within intervals. 5 5 2 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1. Do inspection records indicate that adequate reviews of procedures, records and field activities, including notes and the appropriate level of inspection person-days for each inspection, were performed? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: State utilizes both internal and inspection assistance programs to make sure all areas of inspection are complete. State has Salesforce database to manage operators and inspections are completed in IA. No apparent issues. 3 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals established in the operator's plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 OQ programs appear up to date and OQ is inserted in field inspections. Program Inspections on 5 year intervals. No issues. 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP and DIMP)? This should include a review of plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operator's plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the state's largest operator(s) plans being reviewed annually? b. Are states verifying with operators any plastic pipe and components that have shown a record of defects/leaks and mitigating those through DIMP plan? c. Are the states verifying operators are including low pressure distribution systems in their threat analysis? 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Plan reviews appear up to date. As noted in previous year, they request information annually to get update on IMP/DIMP programs. They are regularly involved on respective systems. No issues.DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 7#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 85 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA that have been deemed acceptable response based on PHMSA reviewing these items during the evaluation process): Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken; b. Operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance); c. Operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21; d. Operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third- party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617; e. Directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies; f. Operator procedures for considering low pressure distribution systems in threat analysis? g. Operator compliance with state and federal regulations for regulators located inside buildings? 2 2 Evaluator Notes: a-f. This questions are incorporated into various checklists. g. They have started incorporating this into annual seminars and plan on issuing advisory for meters inside buildings. No issues. 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? b. Were probable violations documented properly? c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations e. Did state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? f. Can state demonstrate fining authority for pipeline safety violations? g. Does Program Manager review, approve and monitor all compliance actions? (note: Program Manager or Senior Official should sign any NOPV or related enforcement action) h. Did state compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing, if necessary. i. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator outlining any concerns j. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. (Incident investigations do not need to meet 30/90-day requirement) Evaluator Notes: 10 10 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 8#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 9All the various compliance actions are documented, followed-up and tracked appropriately. All data is in salesforce system and PHMSA IA. No issues during review of various inspection reports. 8 (Incident Investigations) Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? 10 10 Evaluator Notes: Incidents are investigated, documented and followed up appropriately. Incident review shows steps taken and all actions, even penalties given, were followed up and closed adequately. No issues. 9 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were no issues in previous evaluation, no response required. 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: They have an annual seminar in April via web conference. no issues Info Only Info Only 11 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: This is on inspection checklists. No issues. Info Only Info Only 12 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 1 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: They conduct mailings and email correspondence along with requests (RSI's) for information on special topics. And MNOPS website. 13 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 9#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 10No issues 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; b. Operator IM notifications; and c. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 15 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 As noted in previous year, there is a waiver to CenterPoint on coupled steel. They get quarterly reports and are monitoring. 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues. All information is available in Salesforce database, which we have been given access and completed inspections in IA are available for review. 17 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT). Has the state updated SICT data? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 Evaluator Notes: Discussed SICT and it appears completed correctly and no issues. 3 3 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Discussed metrics. No issues at this time. Info Only Info Only 19 Did the state encourage and promote operator implementation of Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), or API RP 1173? This holistic approach to improving pipeline safety includes the identification, prevention and remediation of safety hazards. Info Only = No Points a. https://pipelinesms.org/ b. Reference AGA recommendation to members May 20, 2019 Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: Discussion on subject. State currently has CenterPoint energy making SMS part of compliance resolution. No issues. 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 10#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 11PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the comments box below) Info Only = No Points a. What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) b. When was the unit inspected last? c. Was pipeline operator or representative present during inspection? d. Effort should be made to observe newest state inspector with least experience Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: These were two days of operator construction inspections. Units are inspected typically annually. Operator/Contractor was present. 9/29/20 - observed Tom Chrisfield in Lonsdale, MN. New 4" main extension along Idaho Street on South side of town. 9/30/20 - Observed Adam Ratzlaff in morning in Hopkins, MN and Estelle Hickman in Columbia Heights, MN 2 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: All inspectors used checklists from Saleforce system as guides. No issues 2 2 3 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the inspection 10 10 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Procedures (were the inspector's questions of the operator adequate to determine compliance?) b. Records (did the inspector adequately review trends and ask in-depth questions?) c. Field Activities/Facilities (did inspector ensure that procedures were being followed, including ensuring that properly calibrated equipment was used and OQ's were acceptable?) d. Other (please comment) e. Was the inspection of adequate length to properly perform the inspection? Evaluator Notes: a. procedures were reviewed during all sites visited. b. these were construction audits c. Field Activities were adequately reviewed, including various calibration as necessary, various joining activities including underground damage prevention activities. d. n/a e. Yes, the sites visited were adequate in length of inspection. The inspectors stayed at Hopkins site and various follow up to Columbia Heights site were to happen following day. 4 From your observation did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: I found no issues at any sites visited with inspector knowledge. All activities were conducted in a professional manner. 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Lonsdale was finished and other two sites were on-going and issues were reviewed with no issues. 1 1 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 11#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 126 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Evaluator Notes: a. no issues b. 0/29/20 - Lonsdale, main extension about 1400' along Idaho Street., no issues with inspector. Center Point contractor Michels construction was observed. 9-30-20 am - 241 14th Avenue North in Hopkins was a service line replacement, Center Point crew hit service line while excavating and was able to review emergency response activities also. Inspector completed thorough review 9-30-20 pm - Tyler Street NE and 42nd Avenue NE - this was main replacement, 3 service lines were cut over in section reviewed prior to arrival, the contractor Michels was attempting to abandon and purge old main, while there they had difficulty with confirmation of maps and determining if one-way feed was in fact abandoned fully. This was late in day for inspector to follow up. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues with field visits Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 12#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 13PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Annual reports are reviewed and documented in inspection database with each operator. 2 2 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of determining root causes and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence? (? 192.617) Has the state verified that the operators have appropriately identified excavators who have repeatedly violated one-call laws and damaged their facilities. Have the operators taken steps to mitigate that risks? (? 192.1007) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: New 2 NA 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D ? Excavation Damage? Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: New 4 NA 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. What stakeholder group is causing the highest number of damages to the pipelines? Operator, contractor, locating company or public. b. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to stakeholders causing the most damages? c. Has the state evaluated which of the following best describes the reason for the excavation damages; i.e., operator or contractor not following written procedures, failure to maintain marks, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools were required, failure to test-hole (pot hole), improper backfilling practices, failure to maintain clearance or insufficient excavation practices. d. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to address the causes of excavation damages? 2 2 Evaluator Notes: They conduct damage prevention specific evaluations, and review and share operator damage reporting. No issues. DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 13#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 145 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 14#
MN NG Program Evaluation, 2019, page 15PART G - Interstate Agent/Agreement States Points(MAX) Score 1 Were all inspections of interstate pipelines conducted using the Inspection Assistant program for documenting inspections. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues Info Only Info Only 2 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was notice of all Info Only Info Only identified probable violations provided to PHMSA within 60 days. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues 3 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was PHMSA immediately notified of conditions which may pose an immediate safety hazard to the public or environment? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues Info Only Info Only 4 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection did the state coordinate with PHMSA if inspections not were not included in the PHMSA Inspection Work Plan? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues Info Only Info Only 5 Did the state take direction from and cooperate with PHMSA for all incident investigations conducted on interstate pipelines? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues Info Only Info Only 6 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No issues Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 804886729 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Minnesota Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, Page: 15#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.