Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ms2011ngprogramevaluation
2011 MS NG Program Evaluation - ms2011ngprogramevaluation (Mississippi; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ms2011ngprogramevaluation
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date 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 Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 22011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2011 Natural Gas State Agency: Mississippi Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 04/16/2012 - 04/20/2012 Agency Representative: Mark McCarver, Director Pipeline Safety PHMSA Representative: Don Martin, State Programs Division Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Leonard Bentz, Chairman Agency: Mississippi Public Service Commission Address: 501 North West Street, Suite 201a City/State/Zip: Jackson, Mississippi 39201 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2011 (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 progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): 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 G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C Program Performance 44 41 D Compliance Activities 14 14 E Incident Investigations 8 8 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 111 108 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 97.3 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, 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 (A1a) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues were found in Attachment 1 of the 2011 Progress Report. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 (A1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC's database maintains operator and inspection unit information. The database compiles the information for entry into the annual progress report. No discrepancies were found. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 (A1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 The operator and inspection unit information was consistent with the information kept in the MPSC's files. No issues found. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 4 (A1d) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: One reportable incident occurred during 2011. The incident occurred on Canton Municipal Utilities system. The MPSC investigated the incident on site. The information entered into Attachment 4 was consistent with the information in the MPSC's incident investigation files. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 (A1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC's database maintains the number of violations found during each inspection and the correction status of the violations. The database compiles the compliance activity data for entry into the annual progress report. No discrepancies were found. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 (A1f, A4) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Program data used to compile the 2011 Progress Report was accessible and organized in an electronic database. All inspection and program files were accessible; however, the electronic filing system of inspection reports could be improved. Inspection files were organized by operator which does not present a problem; however, it was not easy to locate an inspection file for a certain year under each operator. It is recommended that the MPSC either establish an inspection report naming convention or organize the inspection report files by year under each operator. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 7 (A1g) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The employee listing was complete and accurate. Completed training information was downloaded from Training and Qualifications database. DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 48 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 8 (A1h) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A review of the state rules document for Mississippi on Sharepoint showed that the information on Attachment 8 was consistent. No issues found. 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in 1 1 detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 (H1-3) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC provided detailed description of accomplishments related to damage prevention efforts in the state and its implementation of a training facility at the state fire academy. The MPSC should provide detailed description of its accomplishments related to its annual inspection plan. 10 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Inspection files were organized by operator which does not present a problem; however, it is very difficult to locate an inspection file for a certain year under each operator. It is recommended that the MPSC either establish an inspection report naming convention or organize the inspection report files by year under each operator. The MPSC should provide detailed description of its accomplishments related to its annual inspection plan. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspections (B1a) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC has identified its inspection frequencies in its operation procedures. Standard inspections will be scheduled based upon risk analysis but not to exceed once every two years. 2 IMP Inspections (including DIMP) (B1b) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC's Operation Manual does not explicitly address IMP inspections but can be a part of the Comprehensive inspection. The MPSC should include more detailed description of IMP inspections and the frequency at which it will conduct them. 3 OQ Inspections (B1c) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC has completed the review of operator's initial OQ Plans. The MPSC's Operation Manual states they will be conducted on an as needed basis such as new operators or plan revisions made by an operator. Protocol 9 - Field inspections are conducted as part of the Comprehensive Inspection (Standard). 4 Damage Prevention Inspections (B1d) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Are part of the Comprehensive Inspections (Standard). 5 On-Site Operator Training (B1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC schedules Operator Training on an as needed basis such as new Master Meter operators. 1 1 6 Construction Inspections (B1f) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC requires operators to provide official notice of pending construction projects. The MPSC's Operation Manual states a construction inspection will be scheduled upon receiving these notices. 7 Incident/Accident Investigations (B1g) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC's Operation Manual states that investigators will be sent to incident location as soon as notice is provided. 8 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? (B2a-d, G1,2,4) Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident 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 operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 6e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Yes No Needs Improvement Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: The MPSC's Operation Manual states that these factors will be considered in the scheduling of inspections. Comprehensive inspections of each operator will be completed once every two years. A review of the inspection units indicates that the units are appropriate. 9 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Question B.2 - The MPSC's Operation Manual does not explicitly address IMP inspections but can be a part of the Comprehensive inspection. The MPSC should include more detailed description of IMP inspections and the frequency at which it will conduct them. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? (Director of State Programs may modify with just cause) Chapter 4.3 (A12) Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 590.50 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 6.00 = 1320.00 Ratio: A / B 590.50 / 1320.00 = 0.45 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC experienced 590.5 inspection person days which resulted in a ratio of .45. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 2 Guidelines for requirements) Chapter 4.4 (A8-A11, G19) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: One inspector attended the first TQ course in 2003. Six TQ courses should have been completed by 2008 to meet the five year requirement. According to information on Attachment 7 of the 2011 Progress Report this individual has not completed PL3257, one of the six required courses. Three points are deducted from the possible score of five. The inspector will need to complete this course to avoid a three point deduction in the future. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate 2 2 adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 (A5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Mr. McCarver has been the Director of Pipeline Safety since 2004. He exhibited good knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 4 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 (A6-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC responded within 52 days. 2 2 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 (A3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC conducts a seminar in October of each year. The last seminar was held in October, 2011. 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 (B3) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 5 5 Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 8Yes. The MPSC time intervals are established at once every two years. The MPSC inspected over 90% of the operators and inspection units during 2011. 7 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 (B4-5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC uses the federal inspection forms. 2 2 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The MSPC covers this issue while using the federal form. 1 1 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B8) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC covers this item while using the federal form. 1 1 10 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B9) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC covers this issue while completing the federal form. 1 1 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including 1 1 reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 (B10,E5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC covered this requirement when conducting standard inspections. The MPSC uses the federal inspection which covers this item. 12 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for 2 2 accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Data Initiative (G6-9,G16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The MPSC reviews the annual reports and requests operator to submit revisions if discrepancies are found. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 (G10-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 914 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? (G14) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: As part of the MPSC's standard inspection, the MPSC reviews the operator's submission of pipeline data to the NPMS database. The MPSC has also accessed the database and reviewed the pipelines shown in the database to verify that intrastate transmission lines in Mississippi are included. 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 2 2 regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 (I1-3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC conducted eight drug and alcohol plan inspections during 2011. The MPSC selects several operators each year to verify they are complying with Part 199. 16 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 determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N (I4-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC checks for OQ program updates while conducting standard inspections. 2 2 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 2 up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 (I8-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC has completed Integrity Management Plan initial inspections for all operators that have gas transmission pipelines. On going IMP requirements are reviewed as part of the Comprehensive Inspections. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Yes. The MPSC has conducted three DIMP plan reviews in 2011. DIMP plan reviews will be a priority focus area in 2012. 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being 2 2 followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The Public Awareness program requirements are reviewed during standard inspections. Public Awareness Program Effectiveness (PAPEE) training has been attended by some of the MPSC inspection staff. PAPEE reviews have been initiated on some operators. The MPSC plans to complete PAPEE reviews by the end of 2013. 20 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). (G20-21) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The Commission's website contains a site for pipeline safety where announcements can be placed. The Commission has an online docket system where show cause cases can be accessed.DUNS: 878639368 Mississippi 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 1021 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) 1 1 Reports? Chapter 6.3 (B6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were no Safety Related Condition Reports (SRC) in 2011. There was one SRC reported in 2012 and the MPSC has followed through with the 30 day updates. 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? (G13) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The MPSC has requested this information during its standard inspections and has encouraged operators to participate in AGA's data gathering effort on plastic pipe issues. Mark McCarver is a NAPSR representative on the Plastic Pipe Data Committee. 23 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? (H4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No occurrences were found where the MPSC did not respond to surveys or information requests. 1 1 24 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Question C.2 - One inspector attended the first TQ course in 2003. Six TQ courses should have been completed by 2008 to meet the five year requirement. According to information on Attachment 7 of the 2011 Progress Report this individual has not completed PL3257, one of the six required courses. Three points are deducted from the possible score of five. The inspector will need to complete this course to avoid a three point deduction in the future. Total points scored for this section: 41 Total possible points for this section: 44 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 11PART 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 (B12-14, B16, B1h) Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 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 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC office procedures describe the steps to be taken until the probable violations are corrected. The MPSC issues a non-compliance notification to an operator when a probable violation is found. An operator is given 30 days to respond to the notice. Followup inspections are conducted to monitor the progress of corrective actions. Operators are given the opportunity to povide information showing that a probable violation did not occur or an opportunity to request a hearing before the Commissioners to argue that a probable violation did not occur. The MPSC maintains a database that shows the number of probable violations found in each inspection and the status of corrective action. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 4 document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 (B11,B18,B19) Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected inspection report files the MPSC followed its procedures in the report files reviewed. All probable violations were documented on the completed federal inspection forms. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (B15) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected 2011 inspection report files compliance actions were issued for all probable violations found during inspections. The notice of probable violation letter issued under the Director's signature states the code section(s) that the operator did not comply with but does not describe the action or lack of action that caused the probable violation to be alledged. The notice of probable violation letters to operators could be improved by providing more descriptive detail as to why the operator did not comply with the regulatory requirement(s) stated in the letter. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show 2 2 cause" hearing if necessary. (B17, B20) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Operators are provided with the opportunity to provide information that shows that a probable violation did not occur or if unresolved, operators can petition the Commissioners for a "show cause" hearing. 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) (B27) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC program manager, Mark McCarver, provided a verbal description of the process for imposing civil penalties. The process has not been used in a number of years. Civil penalties have not been issued for repeat violations. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety Info Only Info Only violations? (new question) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The state has not used its enforcement fining authority in a number of years. DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 127 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Question D.3 - The notice of probable violation letter issued under the Director's signature states the code section(s) that the operator did not comply with but does not describe the action or lack of action that caused the probable violation to be alledged. The notice of probable violation letters to operators could be improved by providing more descriptive detail as to why the operator did not comply with the regulatory requirement(s) stated in the letter. Question D.5 - The MPSC has not issued a civil penalty in a number of years including any instance where a repeat violation was discovered. The MPSC should develop criteria for the consideration of issuing a civil penalty including the discovery of any repeat violations. Total points scored for this section: 14 Total possible points for this section: 14 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 13PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 incidents, including after-hours reports? And did state keep adequate records of Incident/ Accident notifications received? Chapter 6 (A2,D1-3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Acknowledgement of MOU between NTSB and PHMSA (Appendix D) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Acknowledgement of Federal/State Cooperation in case of incident/accident (Appendix E) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes. The MPSC is aware of the MOU and Federal/State Participation covered in the Guidelines. The MPSC provides a list of contact and telephone numbers to the operators. The MPSC maintains a log of incidents reported by operators. 2 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 (D4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC investigated the only incident in 2011 on site. 1 NA 3 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? (D5) Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 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: The MPSC uses the federal incident investigation form to report its investigation and conclusions. The MPSC should consider reporting its findings detailed on the federal incident investigation form into a formal report format. The MPSC provides written notification to an operator if probable violations are found during an incident investigation. The MPSC may also want to consider communicating the results of its investigation in a letter to the operator when no probable violations are found. 4 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? (D6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 No probable violations were found during the investigation. Some areas of concern were communicated to the operator. 5 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 (D7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The Southern Region Office responded that the MPSC's performance on this question was Satisfactory. 1 1 6 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: 1 1 at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) (G15) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: During the Southern Region Meeting, the MPSC discussed the results of its investigation of the incident that occurred in 2011. DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 147 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MSPC has generally complied with the requirements of Part E. DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 15PART F - Damage Prevention 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? NTSB (E1) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC covers this issue while using the federal inspection form during its standard inspection. 2 2 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? (E2) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 The MPSC verifies the operator is complying with this requirement while completing the federal inspectio form. 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 2 2 facilities to its regulated companies? (i.e. such as promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices encouraging adoption of the 9 Elements, etc.) (E3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC has promoted the CGA Best Practices with operators has participated in an effort to convince the state legislature to incorporate the 9 elements into Mississippi damage prevention laws. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated 2 2 trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) (E4,G5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC has started collecting the damage information reported on operators' annual report. The MPSC has not started to trend the information. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MPSC has complied with the requirments of Part F. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 16PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Canton Municipal Utility Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Lyla Carnley Location of Inspection: Canton, MS Date of Inspection: 4/18/2012 Name of PHMSA Representative: Don Martin Evaluator Notes: The MPSC inspector conducted a construction inspection of a municipal operator's cast iron replacement project. The municipal operator has initiated a five year project to replace all cast iron and bare steel pipe in its system. The inspector also conducted a follow up inspection for areas of concern identified in a previous standard inspection. The MPSC's Mark McCarver and Neil Wood was present during the inspection. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? (F2) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The operator was given appropriate notice prior to the inspection. 1 1 3 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) (F3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The MPSC inspector used the federal inspection form with a revision date of May, 2011. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (F4) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. All of the entry blanks were completed on the form. 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection 1 1 to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) (F5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The inspector checked to make sure the operator's construction inspector had the proper equipment to verify certain specifications were being met. 2 2 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) (F7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: The inspector reviewed construction plans, specifications and procedures during the inspection. The inspector observed the DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 17installation of service lines and service line connections to a newly installed main. The inspector verified that boring operations were being carried out according to procedures along with plastic fusion of service line connections. 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and 2 2 regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) (F8) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The MPSC inspector, Lyla Carnley, has taken all of the required Training and Qualification training courses and has been an inspector for some time. 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) (F9) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The MPSC inspector reported out on the results of the inspection at the end of the day. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the 1 1 inspections? (if applicable) (F10) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There were no probable violations found during the inspection. The MPSC inspector did point out to the operator that they should confirm their Operator ID in PHMSA's database. 10 General Comments: What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Other. Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 18B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: The focus of the inspection was centered upon the review of Canton Municipal Utlity's cast iron replacement program with operating personnel and the engineering firm executing the replacement project. Observation of cast iron replacement contruction activities were observed. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 19PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? (C1) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? (C2) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? (C3) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 4 Were 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.) (C4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? (C5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? (C6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? (C7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MPSC was not an interstate agent in 2011. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
MS NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 20PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? (B21) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? (B22) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. 1 NA 3 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.) (B23) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. 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? (B24) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? (B25) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? (B26) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The MPSC did not have a 60106 agreement for natural gas pipeline safety in 2011. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 878639368 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Mississippi MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.