# 2010 WY NG Program Evaluation - wy2010ngprogramevaluation (Wyoming; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA wy2010ngprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2010 WY NG Program Evaluation - wy2010ngprogramevaluation (Wyoming; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2010-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2010 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for Wyoming.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wy-ng-program-evaluation-wy2010ngprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wy-ng-program-evaluation-wy2010ngprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wy-ng-program-evaluation-wy2010ngprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/101/wy2010ngprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Incident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 1

2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2010 Natural Gas State Agency: Wyoming Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 09/11/2011 - 09/16/2011 Agency Representative: Wyoming Public Service Commission PHMSA Representative: Dale Bennett Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Alan B Minier, Chairman Agency: Wyoming Public Service Commission Address: 2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 300 City/State/Zip: Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 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 2010 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual certification/agreement attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART F): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART F, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A General Program Qualifications 26 26 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 31 31 C Interstate Agent States 7 7 D Incident Investigations 7 7 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 10 10 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 114 114 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 2

PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 8 8 1 Did the state submit complete and accurate information on the attachments to its most current 60105(a) Certification/60106 (a) Agreement? (NOTE: PHMSA Representative to verify certification/agreement attachments by reviewing appropriate state documentation. Score a deficiency in any one area as "needs improvement". Attachment numbers appear in parenthesis) Previous Question A.1, Items a-h worth 1 point each Yes = 8 No = 0 Needs Minor Improvement = 3-7 Needs Major Improvement = 2 a. State Jurisdiction and agent status over gas facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Gas facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Gas pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the gas pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: Yes. Upon a review of the WPSC's 2010 Certification Application, all information appeared to be accurate and complete. The WPSC's office records provided documentation that supported the information entered into the Certification. 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance with 60105(a) Certification/60106(a) Agreement requirements (fatality, injury requiring hospitalization, property damage exceeding $50,000 - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports)? (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: The WPSC has an incident recording form that is completed by the staff member that receives the telephonic notification. An incident file is created after the form is completed. A spreadsheet is maintained to list all of the incidents reported into the WPSC. 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety TQ seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if 2 2 state requested seminar, but T&Q could not provide, indicate date of state request for seminar. Seminars must be held at least once every 3 calendar years.) (Chapter 8.5) Previous Question A.4 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC holds a regulations update seminar that includes participation by a member of the Office of Training and Qualifications. The seminar is held every other year. The last seminar was conducted in May 2010. 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC keeps paper copies of inspection reports and supporting forms in file cabinets that are secure. The files are organized by operator and unit with multiple years of inspection reports in each file. 5 Did state records and discussions with the state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? (Chapter 4.1, Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes. David Piroutek, Engineering Supervisor, has been in his position of managing the pipeline safety program for many years. Mr. Pirouted has gained an excellent understanding of the PHSMA's requirements for state pipeline safety programs operating under certification from PHMSA. 6 Did the state respond in writing within 60 days to the requested items in the Chairman's letter following the Region's last program evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: There were no items contained in the Chairman's letter that required a response 1 1 7 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8/A.9 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 3

Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: There were no issues raised in the Chairman's letter that required action from the WPSC. Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year TQ training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding TQ courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all TQ courses, but are in a program which will achieve the completion of all applicable courses within 3 years of taking first course (5 years to sucessfully complete), or if a waiver has been granted by the applicable Region Director for the state, please answer yes.) (Chapter 4.4) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 3 No = 0 SLR Notes: All inspectors have completed or are on track to complete the three year and five year requirements. 3 3 9 Brief Description of Non-TQ training Activities: Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: For Operators: For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: SLR Notes: Same as 2009 Info Only Info Only 10 Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q OQ courses and Computer Based Training (CBT) before conducting OQ Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.12 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. The OQ inspections conducted by the WPSC were lead by inspectors that had completed the CBT based training required prior to the inspections. 11 Did the lead inspectors complete all required TQ Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. Training and Qualification records indicate that inspectors who lead IMP inspections received the required training prior to the inspections. The WPSC has one individual that is qualified to lead IMP inspections. 12 Was the ratio acceptable of Total inspection Person-days to Total Person-days charged to the program by state inspectors? (Region Director may modify points for just cause) (Chapter 4.3) Previous Question B.12 Yes = 5 No = 0 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 172.50 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.35 = 297.00 Ratio: A / B 172.50 / 297.00 = 0.58 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 SLR Notes: The WPSC logged 177.33 inspection person days during 2010. On its 2011 Certification, the WPSC assigned 1.65 person years to its program. The ratio of inspection person days to inspection person years calculated to .49 which is greater than the minimum ratio of .38. 13 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Question B.13 Info Only = No Points DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 4

SLR Notes: The WPSC did not make any modifications to its staffing during 2010. There are no plans at this time to make changes in the future. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: The WPSC has generally complied with the requirements contained in Part A of this evaluation. Total points scored for this section: 26 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 5

PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators including LNG) 6.5 6.5 (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes + Incorporate LNG Yes = 6.5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Standard Inspections (Including LNG) (Max points = 2) b IMP Inspections (Including DIMP) (Max points = .5) c OQ Inspections (Max points = .5) d Damage Prevention (Max points = .5) e On-Site Operator Training (Max points = .5) f Construction Inspections (Max points = .5) g Incident/Accident Investigations (Max points = 1) h Compliance Follow-up (Max points = 1) Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: The WPSC has written procedures for its pipeline safety program. A portion of the procedures covers how inspections are scheduled. The WPSC develops a plan each year that shows what operators and units will be inspected, the inspectors assigned, and the type of inspection planned. 2 Did the written Procedures for selecting operators adequately address key concerns? (Chapter 5.1) Previous 2 2 Question B.2, items a-d are worth .5 point each Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b History of Operator/unit and/or location (including leakage , incident and compliance history) Yes No Needs Improvement c Type of activity being undertaken by operator (construction etc) Yes No Needs Improvement d For large operators, rotation of locations inspected Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC's procedures cover all of the concerns in a, b, c, and d above. The WPSC also develops a risk assessment of oprerator's inspection units based upon additional factors not listed above. Inspection Performance 3 Did the state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in its written procedures? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: were inspected. Yes. The WPSC provided a listing of the inspections performed during 2010. Upon a review of the listing, all inspections on the WPSC's inspection plan 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: The WPSC utilizes a standard inspection form that is based upon the federal inspection form. The WPSC conducts special inspections that cover certain areas of the regulations such as corrosion, regulator/relief valve, valve/leaks/patrolling. Regardless of the inspection type and form used, drug and alcohol testing is covered at the end of the form. The forms are written in a format similar to the protocol forms for OQ and IMP. 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports completed in 2010, all portions of the forms attached to the reports were completed. 6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.6 Yes = .5 No = 0 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 .5 Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 6

SLR Notes: There were no safety related condition reports filed by an operator in Wyoming in 2010. 7 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) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: No regulated cast iron pipe in Wyoming .5 .5 8 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) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: No regulated cast iron pipe in Wyoming. .5 .5 9 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) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC reviews operators procedures for managing leaks. The WPSC reviews operators' records documenting leak repairs. The WPSC has required operators to look for leak migration when conducting leak detection and repairs. 10 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? (NTSB) Previous Question 1 1 B.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: The WPSC reviews operators' records for leak detection, response and repairs. The WPSC covers the requirements of 192.617 during standard inspections. 27 SLR Notes: No 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) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only 28 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: There were issues identified that prevented giving all of the available points in Part B of this evaluation. Info Only Info Only Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous 1 1 Question B.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Yes. Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports completed in 2010, the WPSC inspectors stated the pipeline safety regulations that were in non- compliance. In the narrative portion of the reports, a detailed description was provided for the operator's actions or lack of actions that resulted in a probable violation. 12 Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a 1 1 probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question D(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: The WPSC describes it process for non compliance in its procedures. The steps and time frames for action are detailed in the procedures. DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 7

13 Does the state have written procedures to notify an operator when a noncompliance is identified as specified in the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D 1 1 (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC's procedures outline the notifications that must take place including initial verbal notification and formal written notification. 14 Does the state have a written procedure for routinely reviewing the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(5)) Previous Question D(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. After written notification of non compliance, probable violations are maintained in a log process as open probable violations. Probable violations remain open until corrective action is verified by the inspector in designated follow up inspections or future inspections. Prior to performing an inspection, the WPSC inspectors are required to obtain information on open probable violations prior to making their inspection visit. 15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative 1 1 has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question D(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: formal report. Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports completed in 2010, all probable violations were provided to operators by written notification and 16 Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that 1 1 prompt corrective actions were taken by operators, within the time frames established by the procedures and compliance correspondence, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? Previous Question D(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected files of inspection reports completed in 2010, all formal written reports contained a description of any open probable violations. A status was given for each open probable violation. Each open probable violation was deemed to be closed because corrective action evidence was provided by the operator was stated to remain open because proper corrective action had not taken place. 17 If compliance could not be established by other means, did state pipeline safety program staff request formal action, such as a "Show Cause Hearing" to correct pipeline safety violations? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 SLR Notes: During 2010 there were no operators that failed to comply with the WPSC's notifications. There were no "show cause" hearings required. 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question D(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC documents closure of open probable violations. Open probable violations are tracked by the inspectors. 1 1 19 Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: Upon a review of randomly selected inspection reports completed in 2010, all written non compliance correspondence was addressed to an officer if the operator was a private company. 20 Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC's procedures provide opportunities through an administrative process for operators to present evidence that a probable violation did not occur. In not resolved through the administrative process, operators have the opportunity to request a hearing before the Commissioners. DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 8

Compliance - 60106(a) States Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 21 SLR Notes: N/A 1 1 22 SLR Notes: N/A Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question D(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 23 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Previous Question D(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: N/A 24 SLR Notes: N/A Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 25 SLR Notes: N/A Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 26 SLR Notes: N/A Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Total points scored for this section: 31 Total possible points for this section: 31 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 9

PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: N/A 1 1 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question D(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: N/A 1 1 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question D(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: N/A 1 1 4 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Previous Question D(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: N/A 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: N/A 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: N/A 1 1 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: N/A 1 1 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: N/A Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 10

PART D - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question E.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: The WPSC is very aware of the procedures contained in the Guideline's appendices. There were no reportible incidents that occurred during 2010 that required the procedures to be implemented. 2 Are state personnel familiar with the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6 ? Appendix D) Previous Question E.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: the NTSB. Yes. David Piroutek Engineering Supervisor, exhibited a good understanding of the agreement of cooperation contained in the MOU between PHMSA and 3 Did the state keep adequate records of incident notifications received? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: The WPSC maintains a reporting log of all incidents reported into the WPSC including those that do not meet the reporting criteria in 49CFR191. 4 If an onsite investigation of an incident was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information by other means to determine the facts and support the decision not to go on-site? Previous Question E.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: There was no incident meeting Part 191 criteria that was reported during 2010. 1 1 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? Previous Question E.5, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations and Document Review b. Contributing Factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate SLR Notes: There was one investigations required in 2010. 2 2 Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any incident investigation(s)? Previous Question E.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: There were no enforcement actions taken for reportable incidents in 2010. 1 1 7 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 annual report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) (Chapter 6) Previous Question E.7/E.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC responded to requests to follow up with operators who submitted written incident reports. .5 0.5 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: The WPSC generally complied with the requirements contained in Part D of this evaluation. DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 11

Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 12

PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC reviews operators' Operation and Maintenance Procedures each year. The WPSC verifies that operators have procedures in place that address the use of trenchless excavation. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? New 2008 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: This issued is covered on the WPSC's inspection checklist. It is reviewed when the WPSC covers the requirements in 192.614. 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to 2 2 its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC works closely with the Wyoming one call system, Wyoming 811. The WPSC has encouraged Wyoming 811 and gas pipeline operators to incorporate the best practices that effect their processes and procedures related to damage prevention. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Wyoming 811 collects this information from its members on a voluntary basis. Wyominge 811 submits this data to CGA's DIRT reporting system. The WPSC receives Wyoming 811's damage information each year or on an adhoc basis when requested. 5 Did the state review operators' records of accidents and failures due to excavation damage to ensure causes of failure are addressed to minimize the possibility of recurrence as required by 192.617? Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The WPSC covers 192.617 requirements on is standard inspection form. 2 2 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: The WPSC is generally complying with the requirements of Part E of this evaluation. The WPSC has plans to continue pursuing changes in Wyoming's damage prevention laws to incorporate the Nine Elements contained in the PIPES Act. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 13

PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only Name of Operator Inspected: Source Gas Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Laura Arellano-Briot Location of Inspection: Torrington, Guernesy, Hartsville, Ft Laramie, Lusk and Lingle, Wyoming Date of Inspection: 9/12-13/2011 Name of PHMSA Representative: Dale Bennett SLR Notes: Wyoming State Inspector Laura Arellano-Briot completed a standard distribution inspection on six units of Source Gas in Torrington, Guernesy, Hartsville, Ft Laramie, Lusk and Lingle, Wyoming. The inspector focussed on corrosion, line markers, town boarder stations, district regulator stations, business and residental meters. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The operator was notified two months prior to the inspection. Operator's representatives were present during the inspection. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an acceptable inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Previous Question F.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes. The WYSC inspector used the federal inspection form for gas distribution operators. The form was the latest version that was revised in March, 2010. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question F.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes. The inspector marked the "check off" columns for each item on the federal form. If unsatisfactory was checked, an explanation of the non compliance issue was provided in the comments sections. 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.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. The inspector checked that the operator representatives had testing equipment for odorant checks, voltmeters, half cells for cathodic protection readings and leak detection equipment for finding leaks. The inspector checked records to verify that testing equipment met manufacturer's recommendations for calibration of the instruments. 6 What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) New 2008 Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: The WYPSC conducted a standard distribution inspection of Source Gas's six units. The inspection was conducted on September 12th and 13th. 7 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) New 2008, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 14

d. Other (Please Comment) SLR Notes: The WYPSC reviewed the operator's procedures, operation and maintenance records and observed test readings taken in the field. 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question F.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: training facility. Yes. Inspector has several years experience in gas pipeline operations experience and have taken a number of classes at PHMSA's Training and Qualification 9 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Previous Question F.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The WYPSC inspector provided the operator's representatives with a briefing of his findings for the two day inspection. 1 1 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question F.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The WYPSC lead inspector described action that would be take if probable violations were found during the inspection. The WYPSC inspector also provided an explanation of the written notification that would be sent and the follow up process until the corrections actions are verified. 11 What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector Info Only Info Only performed) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: The observation of test readings taken in the field were taken on cathodic test point and overpressure protection pressure set point readings. 12 Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: There were no inspection activities observed that were identied as best practices to be shared with other states. Info Only Info Only 13 Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP Info Only Info Only DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 15

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 D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: Either records were reviewed or test readings were observed for the items checked above. 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: The WYPSC inspector generally met the requirements for this portion of the evaluation. The inspector conducted herself in a professional manner and treated the operator's personnel with respect. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 110414138 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Wyoming Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming, Page: 16

PART G - PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan Points(MAX) Score Risk base Inspections - Targeting High Risk Areas 1 Does state have process to identify high risk inspection units? Yes = 1.5 No = 0 1.5 1.5 Risk Factors (criteria) to consider may include: Miles of HCA's, Geographic area, Population Density Length of time since last inspection History of Individual Operator units (leakage, incident and compliance history, etc.) Threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Other Outside Forces, Material or Welds, Equipment, Operations, Other) SLR Notes: The WYPSC identifies high risk inspection units based upon the length since last inspection, leakage history, incident history and the results of past inspections. Operators are scheduled for more frequent inspections by conducting followup inspections based upon their outstanding non compliance issues. The WYPSC utilizes the knowledge of its inspectors to identify riskier inspection units at this time. The WYPSC should develop a formal risk evaluation process to rank inspection units based upon predetermined risk criteria. 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes. The inspection units are broken up as described in the "Guidelines For State Pipeline Programs" (Guideline). .5 0.5 3 Consideration of operators DIMP Plan? (if available and pending rulemaking) Info Only = No Points Info Only SLR Notes: Operators have not impemented plans, because the Distribution Integrity Management Program rule is not past the due date at this. Info Only 4 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: The WYPSC's investigators are very knowledgeable of each operator's systems and operations. The WYPSC utilizes the investigators knowledge to identify high risk areas and conduct focused inspections. The WYPSC should develop a more formal assessment of risk areas in addition to using the knowledge of its investigators. Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 5 Does state use da
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 53408