Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA sc2015ngprogramevaluation
2015 SC NG Program Evaluation - sc2015ngprogramevaluation (South Carolina; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA sc2015ngprogramevaluation
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation for Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina 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: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 1#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 22015 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2015 Gas State Agency: South Carolina Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 10/18/2016 - 10/20/2016 Agency Representative: Vernon Gainey, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. C. Dukes Scott, Executive Director Agency: Office of Regulatory Staff Address: 1401 Main Street City/State/Zip: Columbia, SC 29201 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 2015 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 13 13 C Program Performance 48 48 D Compliance Activities 15 14 E Incident Investigations 9 9 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 11 11 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 114 113 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.1 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 2#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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: The information listed in attachment 1 appears correct, no issues 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Inspection days listed matched master schedule information. 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: Operators listed appear accurate and match PDM 1 1 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No reportable incidents, confirmed in PDM 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed compliance activities and matched inspection files, no issues. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues, paper kept in file cabinets. Compliance actions kept on program computer files. 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: All training appeared accurate 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: No issues 1 1 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 3#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 4Evaluator Notes: No issues 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 4#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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: General inspection procedures begin on Page 2 of Program Procedures document. 2 2 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: In general IMP and DIMP procedures are covered. Recommend enhancement and procedures should also include assurance an annual sit down with major operators happens on an annual basis. 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 OQ procedures are generally covered. Recommend more specificity as to when OQ Field Inspections are completed. 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: Recommend more specificity about examination of operators damage prevention activities. 1 1 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Covered in general in procedures. Also recommend enhancement to specifically address this issue. 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: Covered in general. Recommend more specific procedures covering this area. 1 1 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation 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 South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 5#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 6b. 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: Procedures summarize priorities and how determinations are made to address this issue. Inspection units appear broken down appropriately. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Core areas of inspection procedures are covered generally. As noted in several of the areas above, recommend further enhancement and refer to State Guidelines Appendix S for reference. Also recommend making sure applicable checklists are referenced in program procedures for inspector use. Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 6#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, 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): 374.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 3.03 = 667.33 Ratio: A / B 374.00 / 667.33 = 0.56 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Full Points - 3.03 Inspector Person days, no issues. 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: No issues presently. Needs to make sure OQ seminar is taken for inspectors. Does not presently have anyone fully qualified to conduct IMP inspections. Recommend full review of TQ curriculum. 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: No issues. 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: Letter sent, November 18, 2015 - Response received December 11, 2015. All issues addressed. 2 2 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: August 2015 was last seminar. 2 2 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 Evaluator Notes: Program attempts to visit all operators every year. All types appear to have had inspections completed in a timely manner. DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 7#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 87 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: checklists appear to cover all requirements and fully complete. Recommend making sure checklists are technically correct with information verified from 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: No cast iron 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: No cast iron 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: This is covered on the Standard Inspection Form and appears to be verified during these inspections. 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: Yes, 192.617 requirement is covered on standard inspection. No issues. 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: examine trends. State reviews information and looks at trends. This is documented in spreadsheet. Recommend use of Pipeline Data Mart to 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, DIMP/IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: This information appears to be entered in a timely manner and no other issues. 2 2 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 8#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 914 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 Evaluator Notes: Confirmed during standard inspection. No issues. 1 1 15 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: D & A inspections appear caught up in CY2015 in record review. 2 2 16 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: OQ programs had significant review start in CY2015 and to date this year. Information reviewed appears adequate verification is being completed. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 2 up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: IMP plans appear on target but program will have difficulty in this area due to having adequately trained personnel. Recommend reaching out to PHMSA for assistance in near term on this issue. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? 2 2 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 have been complete by December 2014 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: First round appears to have adequate program verification. Recommend preparing for future and also recommend annual update from largest operators on this issue. 19 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 be conducted every four years per RP1162 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: All were completed in 2013. Recommend inspection interval that matches every four years per RP1162. 2 2 20 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Website is adequate with appropriate links and information provided. 1 1 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 9#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 1021 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: One SRC in 2015 verified in PDM with Piedmont, appears to be appropriately followed-up. 1 1 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: Operators participate in PPDC, no issues with this. 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: No issues 1 1 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified 1 1 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: This is conditional waiver on unqualified plastic pipe installed for Landfill gas. There appears to only be this waiver and may be close to finalization of operation of this line, but still in service at the moment. 25 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, staff attended 1 1 26 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: Reviewed metrics and discussed AA's. No negative issues at moment, but in the event trends reverse discussed need to target areas and address. 27 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 48 Total possible points for this section: 48 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 10#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 11PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 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: Written procedures are in place covering probable violation processes. 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. 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. Were applicable civil penalties outlined in correspondence with operator(s) Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Two letter process - if response to initial inquiry is not received then possible letter which states civil penalties would go out. All resolved with first letter in CY2015. Recommend making sure this is part of procedures. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Record review indicated satisfactorily met this requirement. 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: No issues 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: Yes, program manager is familiar - process in SC involves PUC which is a separate agency. No issues. 2 2 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 0 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: no record of use of fining authority 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 11#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 12Total points scored for this section: 14 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 12#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 13PART 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: There are general procedures in place. Recommend enhancement including reference to appropriate checklists. Refer to Appendix S of Guidelines. 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: Adequate notification is in place and records are present. State has $5000 threshold of reporting and although no PHMSA reportable incidents were in place, all state records were kept on notifications received. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: appropriate records kept and responses appear adequate 1 1 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: Rating program based on appropriate responses made to state reportable incidents and documentation thereof. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Not applicable as no PHMSA reportable incidents. 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: N/A as no incidents 1 NA 7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 13#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 14Evaluator Notes: Yes, no issues. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 14#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 15PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: This issue is covered under standard inspection form to address directional drilling. 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: This is also covered on Standard Inspection form which includes these issues. 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 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: Staff attends UCC - Midlands UCC and attends other. Attends annual contractors seminar. 2 2 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: This is part of metrics previously reviewed. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 15#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 16PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: South Carolina Electric and Gas Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: John Iglesias, Larry Bryant Location of Inspection: Location 1 - Camden SC - Chestnut Ferry Rd. Location 2 - near Red Bank, SC Date of Inspection: October 19, 2016 Name of PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Evaluator Notes: General Construction inspections visited, no issues. Info Only Info Only 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: Operator contract inspectors were 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, checklists were used and appropriate notes appear to be taken 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues with information documented during time at each site. 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: Yes - no issues. 1 1 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: Field inspections were adequately reviewed. 2 2 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) 2 2 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 16#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 17Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: reviewed multiple times. For information reviewed it appeared there was adequate knowledge. Recommend new inspectors make sure procedures are 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 No issues were found, but general review and discussions with on-site inspectors appropriately reviewed projects. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No probable violations discovered. 1 NA 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 D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance Info Only Info Only DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 17#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 18F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: General plastic pipe construction reviewed and pipe butt fusion at location 1. Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 18#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 19PART 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 1 NA Evaluator Notes: 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 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: 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Section not applicable Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 19#
SC NG Program Evaluation, 2015, page 20PART 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: 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: 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: 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 1 NA Evaluator Notes: 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 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: 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Section not applicable Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 805889529 2015 Gas State Program Evaluation South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff of South Carolina, Page: 20#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.