RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ny-2016-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE 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 -- Accident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (if applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 22016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: New York Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/11/2017 - 08/11/2017 Agency Representative: Kevin Speicher, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans - Office, Jim Anderson - Field Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. John B. Rhodes, Chair Agency: New York Department of Public Service Address: Three Empire State Plaza City/State/Zip: Albany, NY 12223-1350 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes 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 2016 (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 43 43 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Accident Investigations 11 11 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (if applicable) 7 7 I 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 119 119 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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 reviewed appears accurate 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Inspection day file - time reviewed and no issues found. NYPSC actually takes the hours worked and divides by 7.5 (max per day) to come up with days. No issues found 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Information appears accurate and match in 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: Information corresponds with PDM and state records. No issues. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Compliance activities confirmed in state records. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues, all electronic files on NYPSC LAN. All 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: No issues, information provided by TQ 1 1 8 Verification of Part 195,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues reported 1 1 9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 1 1 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 4Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator 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: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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: General program procedures start in State Guidance Manual which is procedures document for the program. The bulk of necessary guidance information starts in Section 4.2 of the Manual covering necessary elements. Interstate information is in Chapter 10. No issues. 2 IMP 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: LIMP and DIMP are included in procedures for the program, Section 4.5 (2). Items are generally covered, but some enhancement could be done to document annual reviews on progress of plans. 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: OQ is covered in procedures, Section 4.5 (3). Field assessments are on-going. No issues found. 1 1 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: Chapter 8 of procedures outlines damage prevention program. NYPSC has enforcement authority over these activities and all are adequately outlined in Manual. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section 4.12 outlines how the program approaches any training efforts done. No issues. 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. 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section 6 of Manual is dedicated to outlining approach to construction inspections. The necessary forms and documentation requirements are listed. No issues found. 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements? DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 6 6 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 6Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement 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 area, 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: Section 4 of Manual outlines inspection priority process including intervals and how inspections are approached with risk considerations. Units for the program do appear to be broken down properly. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Procedures for Gas and Hazardous Liquid programs are same and processes will naturally mirror one another. Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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): 73.64 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.55 = 121.00 Ratio: A / B 73.64 / 121.00 = 0.61 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Person-days well over minimums. No issue 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 IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/prgram 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: It appears that all training and qualifications needed have been met. No issues. 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. Kevin Speicher has 22 years with program. 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: Response was received within 60 days after issuance, this is a combined Gas and HL program. No issues 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: Last seminar in September 2016 1 1 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time 5 5 intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: The inspection summary and inspections reviewed appear to have been done to all operators within the necessary interval. No issuesDUNS: 084003768 New York 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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: Like the gas program, all code requirements are kept on Master Spreadsheet to track and document review of code requirements. All portions appear to have been completed over the intervals. 8 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 195.402(c)(5)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: ll incident and accident notifications received are reviewed and documented in the 'INL' access database 1 1 9 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for 2 2 accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Annual report review is done along with 2017 performance measures report. This information is analyzed and documented annually. 10 Did state input all applicable OQ, LIMP 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: State uses IA for all OQ, also has field forms uploaded to database. No issues. 2 2 11 Has state confirmed intrastate operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: NYPSC does a periodic review. No issues. 1 1 12 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, inspections are in file. No issues. 2 2 13 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 195 Part G Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: OQ plans appear up to date. Information and correspondence letters reviewed in operator files. On-going compliance issues with operators (mostly Gas) regarding qualification matters and Northeast Gas Association DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 914 Is state verifying operator's hazardous liquid integrity management (L IMP) Programs are up to date? This should include a previous review of LIMP 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?). 49 CFR 195.452 Appendix C Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: These currently appear to be reviewed in an acceptable manner. 2 2 15 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. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should have been completed by December 2013. PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 195.440 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Acceptable and state has initiated secondary review of plans 2 2 16 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 and website was updated since last evaluation. As with Gas evaluation, recommend looking at other states for ideas on enhancing further. 17 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: No issues from region 1 1 18 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 19 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. Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues at this time 1 1 20 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes 1 1 21 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site ? http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm Needs Improvement = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 2 2 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 10a. 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: Metrics have been discussed and no issues at this time. 22 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool. (No points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Along with Gas program. SICT was discussed and further progress on entering CY2017 data forthcoming. 23 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Info Only Info Only Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 (No Points) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: 24 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 43 Total possible points for this section: 43 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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 c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Sections 4.9 and 4.10 of the Staff Guidance Manual. Procedures provide examples on how to accumulate violations, how to accumulate pieces of evidence, provides guidance for addressing compliance letters, and for addressing violation specifics. In addition, specific guidance on compliance meetings, high/other risk violations, and a tiered penalty system is outlined in the operator's current merger/rate case. 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 director 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: Copies of audit letters and audit response letters are organized per year. All letters appear to be sent to appropriate personnel, the documentation and resolution process appear acceptable and time frame of resolutions has improved since previous evaluation. No issues 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: yes - all issues appear to have been addressed with the various operators. 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: Yes, operator has due process and ability to object to findings through process established 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 Evaluator Notes: Yes and in conjunction with combined program. no issues. 2 2 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: DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 12Yes with combined program. no issues. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 13PART E - Accident 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: Chapter 9 of the SGM. This chapter provides guidance for media contact, notifications for both business and non-business hours, investigations and documentations, internal notifications, accident investigation guidelines, field investigation reports, reports to the Commission, incident report files, and incidents on interstate facilities 2 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 accidents, 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: Chapters 9, Section 3 of the SGM 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: Form "GW-1 Safety Section Incident Notification Report" This form includes the company, location, affected utility, date, time the incident occurred, time the company was dispatched, time the company arrived on site, whether or not there was and the number of injuries, fatalities, service and customer interruptions, the critical facilities involved, greater than $5,000 in property damage, asbestos release, the customers notified, the police and fire departments notified, the date and time of restoration, the cause, description of the incident, and any additional remarks which may be applicable. 4 Were all accidents 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 where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Through record and documentation review, it appears matters have been appropriately resolved or in process or resolution 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: The Consolidated Edison incident ended up in total system replacement. 1 1 6 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator accident 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: No issues DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 147 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 Evaluator Notes: ok 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 15PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or 2 2 its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: As directional drilling/boring procedures are submitted by each pipeline operator or its contractors, they are reviewed by the Albany Engineering Staff in consultation with each affected Field Office. Any comments/recommendations are then provided back to the operator. 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written 2 2 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: During construction monitoring, incident investigations, and 753 enforcement activities, state inspectors verify that each operator is following its written procedures pertaining to the notification of excavation, marking, positive response, and the availability and use of the one-call system. NY inspectors also respond to complaints made by operators, excavators, and third parties regarding the one-call systems, their process, and compliance with applicable regulations 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: In addition to promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices, NY has incorporated performance measures into the rate cases of several of the jurisdictional pipeline operators. In addition, an independent consultant was selected, in Case 13-M-0314, to audit the performance data submitted by several of these jurisdictional pipeline operators. The results of this audit were presented at the March 17, 2016 Session, its recommendations evaluated, and implemented completed by the operators. 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: No issues 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: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 16PART 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: (1) United Refining Company Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: (1) Patrick Raichel & Zach Tondera Location of Inspection: (1) Tonawanda, NY Date of Inspection: (1) July 11-12, 2017 Name of PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Evaluator Notes: (1) United Refining Company is a 1.1 mile hazardous liquid pipeline outside Buffalo, NY. NY PSC usually inspects this operator every other year. 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: (1) Yes, there were 4 representatives present from United Refinery Company. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: (1) Yes. NY PSC uses the PHMSA IA form for inspections. Also, ZAch Tonders has an addendum to the IA for for documenting field varification. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: (1) Yes. NY PSC staff completed the IA form in 2 days of inspection. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection 1 1 to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,valve keys, half cells, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: (1) Yes. The inspection took place at United Refining Company's office and all need information/equipment for the inspection was available. 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: (1) O & M manuals, company inspection records and onsite field activities were reviewed and conducted. 2 2 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 177 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: (1) Yes. Both Pat R. and Zach T. were knowledgable of the pipeline safety rules and regulations. 2 2 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) Yes. 1 1 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: (1) There were no probable violations identified during the inspection. There were areas of concern the were identified and were to be followed up and documented in the written report to the operator. 10 General Comments: 1) What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) 2) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 3) Other Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping Info Only Info Only DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, page 18D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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 1 Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 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 1 Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 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 1 Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 4 Were probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: 1 1 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: Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 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 1 Evaluator Notes: Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations 1 1 found? Evaluator Notes: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau, no issues with program for these activities. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Per information received from Eastern Region - Marta Reindeau on 7/27/17 all activities regarding Interstate Agent Status are good and state has been responsive and no issues exist. Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
NY HL Program Evaluation, 2016, 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: This section is not applicable. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 084003768 2016 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 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.