Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ne2014ngprogramevaluation
2014 NE NG Program Evaluation - ne2014ngprogramevaluation (Nebraska; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ne2014ngprogramevaluation
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation for NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION 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: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 1#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 22014 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2014 Gas State Agency: Nebraska Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/24/2015 - 08/28/2015 Agency Representative: Section PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Jim Heine, Nebraska State Fire Marshal Agency: Nebraska State Fire Marshal Office Address: 246 South 14th Street City/State/Zip: Lincoln, Nebraska 68508-1804 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No Clark Conklin, Chief Deputy Fire Marshal, Program Manager for the Pipeline Safety 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 2014 (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 9.5 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 45 36 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 10 10 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 113 103.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 91.6 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 2#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A1. Yes. Attachment 1 is in agreement with Attachments 3 & 8 and is consistent with internal records. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A2. Yes. Attachment 2 is in agreement with internal records 1 1 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A3. Yes. Attachment 3 is in agreement with Attachment 1 & is consistent with internal records. 1 1 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A4. Yes. Two incidents were reported; one met criteria for Significant, The other was high risk (blowing gas at 400 psi) that was safely handled without injury or high cost. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A5. Yes. Attachment 5 is in agreement with internal records. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A6. Yes. Attachment 6 is correct but is somewhat dated relative to the current name of some of the files. Most files are electronic. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report 1 0.5 Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A7. NI. 0.5 of 1. Kevin Bumgardner's qualification category as shown is incorrect. He should have been Category V (5) in 2014 for his role as a pipeline inspector. (There is no change to the Progress Report Review Score.) (A revised Attachment 7 was sent to Carrie Winslow on 8/27/15.) 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A8. Yes. Attachment 8 is in agreement with Attachment 1. The Law was administratively updated on 8/2/14, 5 days after the Governor's signature on 7/28/14. DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 3#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 49 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 A9. Yes. Attachment 10 was properly filled out. 10 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A10. NSFM had a successful Damage Prevention year; they created an Excavator One-Call Class where One-Call violators were required to attend by order of the Attorney General and learn about the One-Call Law. The Risk analysis plan has been improved to better schedule inspections of all types. The NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan has been revised to better reflect what the Pipeline Safety Office actually does. The NSFM Web site has been improved. Pipeline violation information has been uploaded. Additional information will be added to the web site later. The NSFM is making plans for a new data base; it will expand the information that can be captured and make the information available to all staff anywhere. The class is becoming popular; in a recent class there were 20 in attendance and only 3 were violators. An annual Damage Prevention Safety Summit was started in 2012 (using Damage Prevention Grant money) The first class had 75 attendees and the 2015 class had 400 attendees. Total points scored for this section: 9.5 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 4#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: B1. Yes. NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan Sec E & I. 2 2 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B2. Yes. NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan Sec E & I 1 1 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B3. Yes. NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan Sec E. 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post- inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B4. Yes. See Sec E. 1 1 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B5. Yes. See Sec E. 1 1 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B6. Yes. See Sec E. 1 1 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 5#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 6c. 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 e. 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: B7. Yes. Sec E names the various risk factors for scheduling inspections and gives the cross reference to the appropriate spreadsheet. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: B8. The NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan is a living document with input from the entire staff. This iterative process is creating an ever improving document. Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 6#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, 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 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 373.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 3.05 = 671.00 Ratio: A / B 373.00 / 671.00 = 0.56 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: C1. Yes. 373 insp person days, 3.05*220 total Inspector days, ratio =.556, >.38, okay. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 0 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? 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 e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: C2. NO. 0 of 5 points. Clark Conklin, program manager, has only attended one of the required courses for a program manager. He has not attended any of the required courses within the past five years. All attended NACE Corrosion control short course. A review of training records found that Arnold Bates needs to complete PL3267 to be fully qualified as a TIMP inspection lead & he has been conducting TIMP inspections for years. With that single exception, all inspectors with 3+ yrs of service have taken the TQ courses. Yes, NI, yes, yes. 3 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 = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C3. Yes. Clark has served many years as Program Manager. 2 2 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct 2 2 or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C4. Yes. The letters were dated 10/24/14 (Fire Marshal letter) & 11/17/14 (Fire Marshal response). All 7 issues were responded to. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C5. Yes. TQ records show 3/28/13 as the most recent date for the Pipeline Safety Seminar in NE. Clark shows record of hosting a Seminar in March of 2014. DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 7#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 86 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 5 4 Evaluator Notes: C6. NI, 4 of 5 points. Two transmission line operators were found to not have had a Transmission Integrity Management Plan inspection within the last 5 years; Metropolitan Utilities District, and Timberline Energy LLC (which is a 60# landfill gas line). DIMP inspections are current. One PAPEI, for North Platte Livestock Feeders has not been done or found. Six OQ inspections, for Alma city, E&S Gasoline, Koch N2, Lincoln Electric, North Platte Livestock Feeders, & Northern Natural Gas were either not done or were not uploaded in the last 5 years. Standard Inspections appear to be current. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 2 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C7. Yes. The NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan specifies the use of the Federal forms except for construction and some special inspections. 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C8. Yes. Federal inspection form-# 2 Part 192.489 (b); pp. 19. 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C9. Yes. Federal inspection form- #2; pg 4 Part 192.613(a). 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C10. Yes. Federal inspection form- #2; pg 5 Part 192.615 (a) (7). 1 1 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C11. Yes. Federal inspection form- #2; pg 4 & 5 Part 192.614 (c). 1 1 12 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: C12. Yes. The NSFM has created and standardized its form for reviewing annual reports. The form is used for all operators; Distribution, Transmission, and LNG. In addition a spreadsheet is used to compare current information against the prior two years of information. Significant variances are investigated. DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 8#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 913 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely 2 1 manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C13. NI. 1 of 2 points. This work is generally done, but there were isolated failures to upload data. The 2008 TIMP of Timberline Energy LLC was not uploaded; the 2011 DIMP inspections for the cities of Stuart and Ponca were not uploaded; Six OQ inspections, for Alma city, E&S Gasoline, Koch N2, Lincoln Electric, North Platte Livestock Feeders, & Northern Natural Gas were either not done or were not uploaded in the last 5 years. 14 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: C14. Yes, The NSFM uses Form 1, the federal form for the inspection of gas transmission pipelines. The requirement for NPMS is on Page 3 of the federal form. 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 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C15. Yes. D&A is a periodic area of focus and has been emphasized during the last 3 years. Generally the D&A Long form is used during the HQ O&M inspections. 16 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 2 1 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 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C16. NI. 1 of 2 points. Six OQ inspections, for Alma city, E&S Gasoline, Koch N2, Lincoln Electric, North Platte Livestock Feeders, & Northern Natural Gas were either not done or were not uploaded in the last 5 years. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 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 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C17. Yes. Good enough. Timberline is a little past due but it is being done now. The rest are current. 2 2 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 DIMP ? First round of program inspections should be complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C18. Yes. The DIMP inspections are completed. Two still need to be uploaded. 2 2 19 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should have been completed by December 2013 2 1 Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 9#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 10Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C19. NI. 1 of 2 points. One PAPEI, for North Platte Livestock Feeders has either not been done or found. 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). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: C20. Yes. The Fire Marshal's office has developed a portion of their website to provide information for all stakeholders. 21 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: C21. NA, No SRC for the last several years. 1 NA 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: C22. Yes. NSFM & operators are aware of their PE inventory, and respond to PE reports. 1 1 23 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: C23. Yes. NSFM responds to NAPSR & PHMSA requests. 1 1 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified 0 0 conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate.(New Question for CY2013, no points until CY2015 evaluation conducted in CY2016) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C24. Yes. It was a 2012 waiver for a mitered fitting to create a 90 deg 16" PE elbow connection. It had detailed requirements that were closely monitored and documented. 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being 0 0 evaluated? (New Question for CY2014, no points first year) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C25. NO. No one from NSFM attended the 2014 National NAPSR Meeting. It is unlikely that they will attend the 2015 meeting. 26 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site. (question will be rolled up and included as part of Question C12 on future evaluations) http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: 0 0 C26. Yes. The PM has reviewed the data and likes it. He sees it will have increasing value as more years of data get added. 27 General Comments: DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 10#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 11Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C27. Program performance has shown the effects of an inspector's prolonged illness. The workload due to the specialized inspections has increased and has been exacerbated by the absence of an inspector. Some of this increased workload is that inspections require increased detail and reporting into federal databases. Increased staffing is very likely needed if NSFM is to perform fully in all areas of Pipeline Safety. Succession planning and technical training also need to be addressed. Total points scored for this section: 36 Total possible points for this section: 45 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 11#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 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: D1. Yes, Yes. See sections B & C. 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 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 b. Were probable violations documented? Yes No Needs Improvement c. Were probable violations resolved? Yes No Needs Improvement d. Was the progress of probable violations routinely reviewed? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: D2. Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. It is an established office procedure. I recommended that it be more fully written into the Inspection & Compliance Plan, Section F. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: D3. Yes. 2 2 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: D4. Yes. 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: D5. Yes. Fines and other penalties were considered 2 2 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 1 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: D6. Yes. Nebraska has the ability and communicates with the Nebraska Attorney General on files. None have been used. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only D7. The Nebraska procedures and statutes for processing violations are well established processes. The Attorney General's DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 12#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 13office has made a commitment, effective August, 2015, to commit manpower to enforce civil penalties against operators for violations as necessary. The willingness of the current Attorney General to pursue civil penalties, when necessary, is appreciated. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 13#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: E1. Yes. NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan Sec G 2 2 2 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 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: E2. Yes. The NSFM publishes and disseminates contact information to operators. A contact listing is also maintained on the web site. After hour contact instructions are sent to operators frequently. The Program Manager is knowledgeable of the MOU and understands the cooperation between the state and PHMSA as outlined in the Appendices of the Guidelines. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: E3. Yes. NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan Sec G. Of the two incidents reported in the Progress Report, both were investigated on site. 4 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? 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: E4. Yes. Both incidents had complete files. Observations, & factors were included. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: E5. NA. no violations were found. 1 NA 6 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: E6. Yes. NSFM works with and responds to PHMSA requests on violations. 1 1 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) 1 1 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 14#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 15Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: E7. Yes. NSFM makes a report of incidents at the regional NAPSR Meeting each year. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: E8. Yes. The NSFM PL Inspection & Compliance Plan Sec G and actual practices are in compliance with PHMSA state programs for incident/accident investigation procedures. All findings and reports are available to NAPSR and PHMSA. The NSFM continues to maintain staff on-call for emergency purposes as required per State Guidelines. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 15#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 16PART 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 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: F1. Yes. This question is addressed during Standard and DIMP inspections. 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 F2. Yes. 192.614 is addressed during every Standard Inspection, and during Damage Prevention Inspections. 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.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: F3. Yes. NSFM had a successful Damage Prevention year; they created an Excavator One-Call Class where One-Call violators were required to attend by order of the Attorney General and learn about the One-Call Law. The class is becoming popular; in a recent class there were 20 in attendance and only 3 were violators. An annual Damage Prevention Safety Summit was started in 2012 (using Damage Prevention Grant money) The first class had 75 attendees and the 2015 class had 400 attendees. 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? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: F4. Yes. The line hit information is gathered, compiled, reviewed, and compared year to year. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: F5. NSFM has increased focus on damage prevention through education and enforcement of regulations. Data is collected to determine trends and to utilize the information to drive damages downward. Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 16#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 17PART 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: Sourcegas, opid 10030 Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Arnie Bates, inspector NSFM Location of Inspection: Sourcegas office, 610 Central Ave, Kearney, NE 68847 Date of Inspection: 8/26/2015 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Evaluator Notes: G1. Sourcegas, opid 10030; Arnie Bates, inspector NSFM; Sourcegas office, 610 Central Ave, Kearney, NE 68847. 8/26/15; Patrick Gaume 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be 1 1 present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G2. Yes. It was scheduled and held at the operator's office and a Company Representative, Lanna Machmuller, Public Awareness Coordinator, attended. 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) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G3. Yes. Mr. Bates used the federal inspection form. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G4. Yes. Mr. Bates entered the results directly into the computer form. PAPEI Form 21. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 G5. Yes. Records, reports, Computer and projector. This was an office inspection and no special equipment was required 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: G6. Yes. PAPEI procedures, records, and effectiveness study results were reviewed. 2 2 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 17#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 187 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 Evaluator Notes: G7. Yes. Mr Bates conducted a professional level inspection. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the 1 1 interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G8. Yes. An end of day exit interview was conducted. No violations were found. Sourcegas was complemented on the thoroughness of their PAPEE and the lessons learned from the study. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the 1 1 inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G9. Yes. An end of day exit interview was conducted. No violations were found. Sourcegas was complemented on the thoroughness of their PAPEE and the lessons learned from the study. 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other. Info Only = No Points 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 B. Signs C. Tapping Info Only Info Only DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 18#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 19D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: G10. The Field Evaluation was to observe Mr. Arnie Bates conduct a PAPEI inspection of SourceGas in their Kearney, NE office. The evaluation was thorough and complete. Mr. Bates was professional in every way. ( i,n,x) Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 19#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 20PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 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.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 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? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: H1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent Program. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 20#
NE NG Program Evaluation, 2014, page 21PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 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.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: I1-7. NA. Not a 60106 Program. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 878046150 2014 Gas State Program Evaluation Nebraska NEBRASKA PIPELINE SAFETY DIVISION, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.