# 2009 NJ NG Program Evaluation - nj2009ngprogramevaluation (New Jersey; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA nj2009ngprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2009 NJ NG Program Evaluation - nj2009ngprogramevaluation (New Jersey; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2009-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2009 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for New Jersey.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nj-ng-program-evaluation-nj2009ngprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nj-ng-program-evaluation-nj2009ngprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nj-ng-program-evaluation-nj2009ngprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/1136/nj2009ngprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 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: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 1

2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2009 Natural Gas State Agency: New Jersey Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 09/20/2010 - 09/24/2010 Agency Representative: Michael Stonack PHMSA Representative: Dino N.Rathod, P.E. Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. Lee A. Solomon, President Agency: New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Address: Two Gateway Center City/State/Zip: Newark, New Jersey 07102 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 2009 (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 24 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 24.5 24.5 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Incident Investigations 7 7 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 11 11 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 10 10 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 99.5 97.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 98.0 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 2

PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 8 6 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: Discussed several minor corrections needed in Attachment 2 & 7- (page 20). BPU incorrectly reported "No" D&A" inspections. Upon review, NJ found documentation to claim D&A Inspeciton activity. Attachment 7 Summary on Page 20 was listed incorrectly. BPU was advised to recheck and revise to show corrected / missing data- Person days spent by Inspectors. Subsequently BPU e-mail dated 10-20,2010 provided revised information. BPU was advised to inform Zach with mark-up copies of changes by e-mail for his concurrence and correct data in FedStar ASAP. 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: 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety TQ seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if 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: NJ hosted T&Q seminar April 2008. NJ BPU is also hosting a T&Q Seminar in October 2010 2 2 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: 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: Mike Stonack is very experienced in pipeline regulatory and intrastate gas company operations. He has completed T&Q training courses. He also works closely with PHMSA and NAPSR states. He provides guidance to BPU inspectors. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: BPU sent response within 60 days. DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 3

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 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: NJ Natural Gas Pipelines -readoption of Administrative Code was approved in August 2009 1 1 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 3 3 SLR Notes: Review of BPU Inspector T&Q training idicated that BPU has M Stonack complete required IMP course as a Lead Person. But one BPU inspector took IMP PL1297 in May 2005 but has not successfully completed. I suggested that this becompleted by registering with T&Q as soon as possible. BPU to keep me informed of progress. 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: Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 10 SLR Notes: 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 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 SLR Notes: M. Stonack has completed required IMP courses and CBTs 1 1 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 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 398.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 3.00 = 660.00 Ratio: A / B 398.00 / 660.00 = 0.60 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 SLR Notes: OK. Ratio > 0.38, Score=5 points 5 5 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 4

13 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Info Only Info Only Question B.13 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 24 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 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) (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) SLR Notes: 6.5 6.5 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 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: 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 SLR Notes: 2 2 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: I also suggetsed that BPU may consider obtaining a MMO inspection form from MD PSC. NJ can revise to BPU requirements, as necessary. Mike Stonack agreed to utilize ASAP. ALso on-going discussion for electronic forms to allow resources effectively. Current method of manually documenting revisons/ changes is very cumbersome and time consuming. 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 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 SLR Notes: DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 NA New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 6

None in CY 2009 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: BPU reviewes Exposed CI pipe inspection form (GS-9-LP) - item 18. Code Requirement per Part 192.459 .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: BPU inpection form GS-2, page 2 of 6. LDC procedures Typical example- NJNG procedure 3.07-01 .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 SLR Notes: BPU inspection form GS-3, pages 2 and 3 cover these items. Example- NJNG procedures Section 4.0 and 3.01.03 .5 .5 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: requirements. BPU typically reviews LDC records of previous gas incidents/ failures and possible 3rd party damages BPU inspection form GS-3 per 192.617 Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous Question B.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 1 12 SLR Notes: Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a 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 1 1 13 SLR Notes: 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).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 14 SLR Notes: 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 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 7

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: Compliance Actions in 2009 Per 2010 Certiifcation Attachmnet 5- BPU found 19 Probable violations and 3 carry over from previous years; 17 were corrected; BPU initiated 19 16 SLR Notes: Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that 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 1 1 17 SLR Notes: 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 18 SLR Notes: 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 1 1 19 SLR Notes: 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 20 SLR Notes: 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 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 NA 22 SLR Notes: 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 NA 23 SLR Notes: DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 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 NA New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 8

24 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 NA SLR Notes: 25 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 NA SLR Notes: 26 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 NA SLR Notes: 27 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: NJ BPU Procedure Manual (date Rev 2010). Discussed suggested changes with BPU staff. BPU agreed to incorporate by end of Dec 2010 and after completion of 2011 Certification of document and revised PHMSA Guideline Manaul in early 2011 Total points scored for this section: 24.5 Total possible points for this section: 24.5 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 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 1 NA SLR Notes: 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 1 NA SLR Notes: 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 1 NA SLR Notes: 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 NA SLR Notes: 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 NA SLR Notes: 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: 1 NA 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: 1 NA 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: NJ BPU is intrastate gas program 60105(a) Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 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 SLR Notes: 1 1 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 SLR Notes: .5 .5 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: 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: BPU typically check by phone call and e-mail for determination of baic facts etc. 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 2 2 b. Contributing Factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: this pipeline location. Discussed NJNG Incident of Feb 13, 2009. Damage to 20-in pipeline from hammer drill for environmental monitoring wells. BPU will continue to monitor 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: 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: .5 0.5 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: necessary Discussed with BPU - PHMSA's need for Accurate, Complete and consistent data. BPU reviews 30-Day incidnet report, Suplemental and Final Report, as DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 11

Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 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: BPU reviews HDD Procedures with LDCs. NJ Admin Code (NJAC) Ch 7- 14:47-1.25 coveres Directional Drilling Operations; Excavator Guidelines 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 2 2 SLR Notes: NJ One Call requirements- BPU checks as part of construction inspection activities and verify One Call related information notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system. 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: BPU actively participate in NJ CGA quarterly mtgs- Discuss "Best Practices" with various stakeholders. 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: NJ continues to collect damage data to underground gas facilities and performs evaluation. NJ One call review indicate downword trend in reported damages (21%), Marked facility Damages (16%), Unmarked facility damges (27%). Based on per 1000 ticket request data: in 2006 thru 2009- Gas damages of 4.65/1000 ticket requests to 3.26 in 2009; Also Gas No Marks show reduction 1.94 to 1.28 for same period. 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: BPU performs review as part of scheduled inspections 2 2 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Positive Response- New contact with One Call vendor- Pilot Automation for Positive Response expected to start in October 2010. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 13

PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: J. Grillo; E Lihan and J Prieto Location of Inspection: Morris Township; Date of Inspection: 09/23/2010 Name of PHMSA Representative: Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Bare steel main Replacement, critical valves-and Pressure Reg Sta maintenance inspection of PSE&G 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 1 1 SLR Notes: PSC Reps were at these locations- Replacement of bare steel main, Critical Valve and Pressure Reg Sta Maintenance in Morris Township, NJ 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: BPU isnepctors used applicable State Check Lists and federal inspection forms 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question F.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU e-mailed to me on 10-1-2010 "Completed Scanned copies of inspection check lists. 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.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: field locations BPU inspector has pipe fusor verify heating iron surface temp with a digital contact thermometer. PSE&G has also necessary maps and related documents at 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 SLR Notes: Construction- Bare steel 6-in main replacement; Critical valves and Pressure Reg Sta maintenance. Info Only Info Only 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 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) 2 2 SLR Notes: DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 14

Construction- Bare steel 6-in main replacement; Critical valves and Pressure Reg Sta maintenance 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 SLR Notes: BPU inspectors J Grillo, J Prieto and Ed Lihan are very experienced and knowedgeable and have completed T&Q training. 2 2 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 1 1 SLR Notes: 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous Question F.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: No issues or concerns were found. 1 NA 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: Inspector: J. Grillo Operator: PSE&G Location: Wippany Road, Morristownship, NJ PSE&G crew was in process of replacing exist 6-inch bare steel main with 6-inch HDPE, SDR 17, ASTM D 2513, PE 34-8/ PE 4710. He observed line locate marks, pipe storage on elevated roller supports and wood blocks. He checked fusor qualifications and surface temp of heating iron. He also checked trench depth and quality of backfill. Criticl valves: Inspector: E Lihan Location: Blackberry and Laura Manes, Morristownship Ed observed PSE&G crew perform critical valve maintenance of Valve V # V2205, size 16 inch. PSE&G checked for gas presence using gas detection instrumentation and checked pressure on both sides of valve Morris Pressure Reg Station: Location: 10 Laura lane, Morris Inspector: J Prieto John observed routine mainteance and performed brief tour of facility and reviewed selected mainteance records. Algonquin (Spectra Energy) provide gas at 650 psi. PSE&G will trim protruding tree branches along fence. 12 SLR Notes: Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only = No Points 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 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 15

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 F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: No issues or concerns were found. DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 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: BPU Procedures Manual- Section 4C. BPU reviews Distribution transmission pipelines subject to IMP Rules, leak response data submitted by various LDCs. NJ requires high pressure meter set location damage protection from vehicular traffic. 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU unit breakdown follows Procedures Guidelines. .5 0.5 3 Consideration of operators DIMP Plan? (if available and pending rulemaking) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: BPU has on-going effort to wotk with LDCs and follow DIMP implementation progress. Info Only Info Only 4 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: BPU considers multiple items in inspection activities: BPU Procedures Section 4C; 4C(2)-- Casr iron and Bare Steel replacement, U/G Fuel atnk removal/ repalcement considerations to minimize damage to exist gas pipeline facilities; high pressure meter set protectionfrom vehicles; Active support and participation of One Call GIS maps with multi-layered information Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 5 Does state use data to analyze effectiveness of damage prevention efforts in the state? (DIRT or other data, etc) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU Pipeline Safety and One Call reviews damage data for determination of effectiveness of damage prevention efforts. .5 0.5 6 Has state reviewed data on Operator Annual reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU receives and reviews all LDC Annual Reports .5 0.5 7 Has state analyzed annual report data for trends and operator issues? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: data to BPU. BPU receives and analyzes LDCs Annual Leak Reports and Quarterly Leak Responses. In addition, LDCs also submit cast iron nuber of breaks Performance 8 Has state reviewed data on Incident/Accident reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU performs Incidnet Reports for accuracy and current information. DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 17

9 Does state do evaluation of effectiveness of program based on data? (i.e. performance measures, trends, etc.) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU receives reviews and LDCs Performance measures Data. Four LDCs- Elizabethtown Gas, PSE&G, NJNG and SJG meet on a quarterly basis. 10 Did the State input all operator qualification inspection results into web based database provided by PHMSA in a timely manner upon completion of OQ inspections? Previous Question B.15 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: For 2009- BPU perofrmed 3 OQ Plan reviews and 34 field verification inspections. Emphasized and clarified issue of Plan/ Procedures review. Per PHMSA Guideline Manual "Inspection Time " requires activities away from BPU office and LDC facilities. Also emphasized need for use of OQ Protocols to document inspection observations in OQDB. 11 Did the State submit their replies into the Integrity Management Database (IMDB) in response to the Operators notifications for their integrity management program? Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: In 2007- several interstate pipeline operaors had submitted notifications in Gas IMP database. In 2010 Spectra Energey an interstate gas transmission operator submitted notifications in Gas IMP database. 12 Have the IMP Federal Protocol forms been uploaded to the IMDB? Previous Question B.17 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU informed me of completion of upload of IMP inspection. .5 0.5 13 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? Previous Question B.18 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: NJ operators have provided information. In addition, LDCs are required to notify BPU of any defects. .5 0.5 14 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) database along with any changes made after original submission? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU indicated that NJ LDCs have submitted data into NPMS. .5 0.5 Accident/Incident Investigation Learning and Sharing Lessons Learned 15 Has state shared lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (i.e. NAPSR meetings and communications) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU shared NJ incident information at NAPSR ER Mtg at Essex Junction, VT. Also shared data at NJGDO Quarterly mtgs .5 0.5 16 Does the State support data gathering efforts concerning accidents? (Frequency/Consequence/etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: BPU works closely with ER/ PHMSA and NAPSR. 17 Does state have incident/accident criteria for conducting root cause analysis? Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 18

18 Does state conduct root cause analysis on incidents/accidents in state? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 19 Has state participated on root cause analysis training? (can also be on wait list) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: BPU Ed Lihan in Sept 2010; J Grillo scheduled for June 2011. Transparency - Communication with Stakeholders 20 Other than pipeline safety seminar does State communicate with stakeholders? (Communicate program data, pub awareness, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: LDC Quarterly Mtgs; NJ CGA Mtgs; One Call Training Seminars 21 Does state share enforcement data with public? (Website, newsletters, docket access, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 1 Public can formally request thru State FOIA Rules. BPU also provides access to dockets via website and BPU agenda open to public 22 Part G: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: NJ BPU Procedure Manual (date Rev 2010). Discussed suggested changes with BPU staff. BPU agreed to incorporate by end of Dec 2010 and after completion of 2011 Certification of document and revised PHMSA Guideline Manaul in early 2011. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 189737682 2009 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New Jersey NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, Page: 19

PART H - Miscellaneous Points(MAX) Score 1 What were the major accomplishments for the year being evaluated? (Describe the accomplishments, NAPSR Activities and Participation, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 1. NJ Accelerated Infrastructure Repalcement Stimuls Plan will increase replacement of cast iron and bare steel pipes 2009 thru 2011. 2 One Cll 811 logo placed at LNG tank along NJ turnpike near exit 16 2 What legislative or program initiatives are taking place/planned in the state, past, present, and future? (Describe initiatives (i.e. damage prevention, jurisdiction/authority, compliance/administrative, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Aug 19, 2009 Si
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 45439