Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA nc-2018-gas-program-evaluation
2018 NC NG Program Evaluation - nc-2018-gas-program-evaluation (North Carolina; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA nc-2018-gas-program-evaluation
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation for NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES 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: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 1#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 22018 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2018 Gas State Agency: North Carolina Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/08/2019 - 07/12/2019 Agency Representative: Steve Wood, Gas Pipeline Safety Manager PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Liaison Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Charlotte A. Mitchell, Chair Agency: North Carolina Utilities Commission Address: 430 North Salisbury Street, Dobbs Building City/State/Zip: Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 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 2018 (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. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 47 47 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 11 11 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 116 116 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 2#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Attachment 1 has ten operators but there is eleven transmission operators in PDM which submitted annual reports. Kings Transmission is a new operator and will be added to the NCUC operator list. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified inspection days with the NCUC database to check for accuracy. There was a total of 676 inspection days which is accurate. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed operator list with Annual Reports and NCUC database to verify accuracy of attachment 3. There are no issues identified. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were two reportable incidents in 2018 which were investigated by the NCUC. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed NCUC data to verify accuracy of compliance actions. The total compliance actions are accurate. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, files are kept organized and accessible. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes verified employee training in the Blackboard and checked for accuracy of Attachment 7. 1 1 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: NC adopts PHMSA rules and updates automatically within 30 days of the amendments. 1 1 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 3#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 49 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in 1 1 detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Planned goals were to complete all standard inspections on a yearly basis and to conduct construction inspections and promote damage prevention efforts in the state. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is mainly complying with Part A of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 4#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 2 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: Section V of Pipeline Safety Program Procedures Manual has inspection procedures which give guidance to state inspectors on how to conduct standard inspections. The procedures include pre and post inspection activities. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 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: Section V has DIMP and IMP procedures which give guidance to the inspectors on conducting IMP and DIMP inspections. The procedures have pre and post inspections activities which are performed for all types of inspections. 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: 1 1 Section V has OQ inspection procedures that provide guidance to inspectors on performing OQ inspections. 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 1 1 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: Section V has Damage Prevention inspection procedures that provide guidance to inspectors on performing Damage Prevention inspections. Procedures include pre and post inspection activities. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Procedures include operator training which is provided as needed. 1 1 6 Construction Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 1 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: Yes, the procedures manual includes construction inspection guidance to the inspectors which are very detailed. Procedures include the verification of construction technician's qualifications during construction activities. 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 6 6 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 5#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 6a. 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 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 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: Yes, inspection planning is in Section IV of procedures. a. Length of time since last inspection is considered during inspection planning. b. The history of operator is used to prioritize inspections. c. The types of activities is considered during the inspection planning d. HCAs are considered to prioritize inspetions. e. Types of threats are reviewed as part of the inspection process. f. yes, units are broken down appropriately. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is mainly complying with Part B of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 6#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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): 676.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 5.90 = 1298.00 Ratio: A / B 676.00 / 1298.00 = 0.52 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspection person days to total person days was .52 is acceptable. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 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: Yes, verified TQ training with current inspectors to assure all lead inspectors are qualified to lead inspections. a. Yes only OQ qualified inspectors are lead on OQ inspections. b. Yes, DIMP/IMP lead inspectors are qualified. c. Yes, several inspectors have taken the root cause course. d. Have not attended any outside training. e. Yes, verified that lead inspectors are the lead during inspections. 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: Yes, Mr. Steve Wood is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 2 2 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 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, response was received within 60 days. 2 2 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the last TQ Seminar was in 2018. 1 1 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 7#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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 5 Evaluator Notes: Have completed all types of inspections within their established time intervals. OQ Program and Public Awareness inspections were completed in 2019 or are scheduled to be completed. 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: Yes, use the PHMSA forms to conduct standard inspections, OQ , IMP, PAPEI, DIMP and CRM. Started to use IA for O&M inspections on the bigger operators. 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: There is no cast iron in the state. 1 NA 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: There is no known cast iron in the state. 1 NA 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: Yes, the question is asked during standard inspections by the state inspectors. 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, review incidents and leak responses by operators to assure procedures are being followed. The inspectors review during standard inspections. 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes, review operator annual reports and analyze data for trends and damages per 1000 tickets. 2 2 13 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? 1 1 North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 8#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 9Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, verify NPMS submissions during standard inspections 14 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 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: Yes, conduct drug and alcohol inspections to verify operators are in compliance with 49 CFR 199. 2 2 15 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification 2 2 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: Yes, the NCUC conducted OQ Program inspections in 2018. They are scheduled to complete all OQ program inspections in 2019. 16 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). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually? Are replies to Operator IM notifications addressed? (formerly part of Question C-13)). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection files and database to verify IMP inspections are being conducted. 2 2 17 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). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NCUC has conducted DIMP inspections to verify operator DIMP programs are in compliance. 2 2 18 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. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 192.616 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The NCUC conducted Public Awareness program inspections in 2018 to assure operators are in compliance. The NCUC has demonstrated good progress in completing all PAPEI inspections. 19 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: Yes, the NCUC communicates with stakeholders during industry conferences and thru their website. The NCUC website has pipeline safety information and cases can be viewed by docket numbers. DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 9#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 1020 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) 1 1 Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There is one SRCR in PDM which is still open. The NCUC has not been contacted by PHMSA to close or investigate the Safety Related Condition. 21 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? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NCUC discusses with operators during seminars and meetings. During inspections the inspector verifies if there are any know plastic pipe or components in their system. 22 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Steve Wood responds to surveys and requests from NAPSR or PHMSA. 1 1 23 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Issued a waiver in 2017-2018 to Duke Energy waiving the ILI reassessment. The pipeline has been put out of service. Recommend the NCUC get an official letter from Duke stating that pipeline is abandoned in order to close the waiver. 24 Did the state attend the NAPSR National Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Steve Wood attended the NAPSR National Meeting. 1 1 25 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Discussed performance metrics which all seem to be in a positive(acceptable) trend. Damages per 1,000 tickets are on downward trend. 26 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State 1 1 Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) Has the State updated SICT data? No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Discussed the SICT inspection days with the NCUC and do not foresee any issues. The number seem to be accurate and don't see any issues in the future. 27 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 10#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 11The NCUC sent out an email to their transmission operators to check on flow reversals. The ADP will be added to the Transmission form so inspectors can verify during inspections. 28 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is mainly complying with Part C of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 47 Total possible points for this section: 47 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 11#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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 c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section V of the Pipeline Safety Program Procedures Manual has procedures explaining the process of issuing and resolving probable violations. a. yes, Section V(R) mentions that correspondence is sent to company official. b. yes, Section V has procedures to routinely review open cases to avoid delays. c. yes, Section V explains process to close outstanding probable violations. 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? (Incident Investigations do not need to meet 30/90 day requirement) 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. Document probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement c. Resolve probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement d. Routinely review progress of probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement e. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility inspected outlining any concerns; and Yes No Needs Improvement f. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports to assure state is following procedures to resolve probable violations. a. Yes, reviewed inspection reports and compliance actions were sent to company officials. b. Yes, inspection reports reviewed had all probable violations documented. c. Yes, probable violations were resolved in a timely manner. d. Yes, seems that all probable violations are being routinely reviewed for closure. e. Yes, Section C has 30 day exit interview requirement which is being followed. f. Yes, Section C has 90 day written notice requirement which is being followed. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports and it seems that the NCUC is addressing all probable violations found during inspections. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show 2 2 cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the compliance procedures gives due process to all parties involved. The law allows the operator options to respond to any probable violations. 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) 2 2 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 12#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 13Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Steve Wood is very familiar with their state process for imposing civil penalties. The NCUC did not issue any civil penalties in 2018 but have issued civil penalties in the recent years. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NCUC did not issue any civil penalties in 2018 but have issued civil penalties in the recent years. 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is mainly complying with Part D of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 13#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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/ 2 2 accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section VI of the Pipeline Safety Program Procedures Manual has incident/accident investigation procedures for inspectors to use as a guide.. 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: Yes, the NCUC has an adequate mechanism to receive and respond to incidents. The state law requires operators to notify the state of incidents. Operators are given a telephone list which must be used when calling the NCUC to report an incident. The program manager receives notifications and decides whether to go onsite. a. yes, the NCUC is aware of the MOU between NTSB and PHMSA. b. yes, the NCUC is aware of federal/state cooperation in case of an incident. 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: The NCUC investigates all DOT reportable incidents that meet the reportable criteria. All incidents were investigated in 2018. 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: Yes, there were two reportable incidents that he NCUC investigated in 2018. a. Yes documentation was made of all incidents. b. Yes, contributing factors were addressed in their investigations. c. Yes, the NCUC issues non compliance to prevent recurrences when appropriate. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There were no compliance actions issued in 2018 1 1 6 Did the state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 14#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 15Evaluator Notes: that occur in the state. Yes, the NCUC assists the AID whenever they ask for assistance. Steve Wood keeps the AID informed of all major incidents 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, lessons learned are shared during the NAPSR Region meeting. 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is mainly complying with Part E of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 15#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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: Directional boring is discussed during the inspections and construction involving boring/drilling. 2 2 2 Did the state inspector verify pipeline operators are following their written procedures 2 2 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: Yes, the inspector reviews the operators one call procedures and how they handle notifications and marking of pipelines. During 3rd party damage incidents the NCUC verifies markings and the use of one call system. 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: Yes ,the NCUC is very involved with promoting CGA to reduce damages to underground facilities. The Governor has proclaimed April as dig safely month in the past. 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) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Use annual reports to gather data to analyze and trend. Also the N. Carolina 811 website publishes the Supermega spreadsheet from 811 which has data analysis of number of hits. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is mainly complying with Part F of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 16#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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: Dominian Energy Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Hilary King Location of Inspection: Chapel Hill, NC Date of Inspection: July 11, 2019 Name of PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, PHMSA State Programs Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Mr. Hilary King while conducting a standard inspection of Dominian Energy transmission system in Chapel Hill, NC. Mr. King was checking relief valves and regulator stations. He was very observant while evaluating the condition of the stations and had the technician test the relief valves. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the operator was notified with enough notice to allow any representatives to be present. 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) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. King was utilizing the Transmission inspection form as a guide during the inspection. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. King documented the results on the inspection form. 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 Yes, the inspector had the technician test every relief valve and checked that proper equipment was used to perform the task. 2 2 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: at another time. Mr. King checked the procedures while observing the technician test relief valves. Records of the inspections were reviewed DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 17#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 187 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and 2 2 regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. King has been with the NCUC for several years and is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 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: Yes, Mr. King concluded the inspection with an exit interview. Due to the inspection not being over and Mr. King going back to complete the rest of the inspection, the exit interview was not the final interview with the operator. 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: Mr. King discussed the results of the inspection with the operator but no probable violations were discovered during the inspection. 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 18#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, page 19C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Mr. King observed a technician test relief valves and made sure they relieved at the set pressures. He checked the condition of the station piping and verified for signs. He also checked the technicians OQ records. He performed an excellent job and is a great asset to the NCUC. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 19#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 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: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC is not an interstate agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 20#
NC NG Program Evaluation, 2018, 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: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. 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: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. 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: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. 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: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. 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: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. 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: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NCUC does not have a 60106 Certification. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 780414723 2018 Gas State Program Evaluation North Carolina NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, 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.