# 2017 NY HL Program Evaluation - ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation (New York; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
- **title:** 2017 NY HL Program Evaluation - ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation (New York; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2017-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2017 PHMSA hazardous liquid program evaluation for New York.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-hl-program-evaluation-ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-hl-program-evaluation-ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-hl-program-evaluation-ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/3516/ny-2017-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2017 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 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1

2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: New York Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/17/2018 - 07/19/2018 Agency Representative: Kevin Speicher, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Evaluator (Office Evaluation) Jim Anderson, State Evaluator (Field Evaluation) Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. John B. Rhodes, Chairman Agency: New York Department of Publci Service Address: Empire State Plaza, Building 3 City/State/Zip: Albany, New York 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 2017 (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 42 42 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Accident Investigations 7 7 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 11 11 H Interstate Agent State (if applicable) 7 7 I 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 113 113 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2

PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed operator and inspection database and compared with annual reports. The progress report seems to be accurate. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed NY DPS database information and compared to Progress Report to verify inspection days. There were no issues identified. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed NYDPS operator list and Pipeline Data Mart to verify operators and units. The progress report is accurate. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were no federally reportable incidents in 2017. The NY DPS did go out to investigate a potential leak but was determined not to be pipeline related. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: their database. Verified compliance actions with previous years for carry over number. Compliance actions are kept track by the NY DPS in 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Most files are kept electronically. If needed copies of correspondence can be printed for review. Construction files are kept in the office and are secured and accessible. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, verified training with SABA and with NY DPS training records. 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: State has adopted the rules and regulations. Adopt rules within 2 years of amendments. 1 1 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3

9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in 1 1 detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, big accomplishment was the Damage prevention laws raised the penalty amounts from $1000 with max of $2500 to a minimum of $2500. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS is mainly complying with Part A of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4

PART 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: Reviewed NY DPS State Guidance Manual and inspection procedures are detailed and give guidance to inspector on how to conduct inspections. 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: Reviewed procedures which include IMP inspection procedures in section 4.5. Section 4.4 and 4.4.1 covers field audits and field observation audits which should include IMP field verifications. 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: Section 4 of Procedures covers OQ Plan inspections and OQ Field Verification inspections. 1 1 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: 1 1 Chapter 8 of Guidance Manual has damage prevention procedures to give inspectors guidance in performing inspections. 5 Any operator training conducted should be outlined and appropriately documented as 1 1 needed. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section 4.12 has Operator Training procedures that gives inspectors guidance in performing operator training. 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: Chapter 6 of the Guidance Manual has procedures for Construction Inspections. The procedures has details that give guidance to inspector in performing construction inspections. 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 6 6 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 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 Guidance Manual has inspection procedures which include a five year inspection interval and risk based inspection priorities. Special audits are also conducted if there are areas of concern of an operator. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DSP is mainly complying with Part B of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6

PART 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 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 117.09 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.15 = 253.92 Ratio: A / B 117.09 / 253.92 = 0.46 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: DPS data. The Total inspection person days to total person days ratio is acceptable. Verified inspection days in progress report with NY 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: a. Yes, all lead inspectors have required OQ training. b. Yes, all lead inspectors have required IMP training. c. Everyone who has been here more than five years has taken the Root Cause Training. d. No additional training in 2017. e. Verified that all lead inspectors have minimum qualifications. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Speicher is knowledgeable of the PHMSA program and regulations. 2 2 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: The letter was received past the 60 days due to there being a change in personnel and miscommunication. The issue was discussed with program manager to assure response in not delayed in the future. 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the last seminar was in 2016. 1 1 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7

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: Reviewed inspection reports and seems that all inspection types are being conducted within the established interval. The NYDPS uses a risk rank to establish the interval of each part of the standard inspection. Intervals are not to exceed 4 years for each code section which assures that the entire standard inspection is entirely completed in 4 years. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 2 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The NYDPS uses an excel workbook to track the all the inspections conducted. The workbook has all the code requirements and are asked during the inspections. 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: Review 30 day reports and incident reports to assure appropriate response is made by the operators. 1 1 9 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NYDPS reviews Annual Report for accuracy along wit incident reports and analyze for trends. 2 2 10 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: Yes, review NPMS submittals during inspections. 1 1 11 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, conduct Drug and Alcohol inspections per their procedures. 2 2 12 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: Yes, reviewed inspection report and the NYDPS conducts OQ program inspections within their intervals established in their procedures. DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8

13 Is state verifying operator's hazardous liquid integrity management (L IMP) Programs are 2 2 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? Are replies to Operator IM notifications addressed? (formerly part of Question C-10)). 49 CFR 195.452 Appendix C Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection files and IMP inspections are performed on operators in intervals established in their procedures. 14 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 be conducted every four years by operators. 49 CFR 195.440 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: PAPEI inspections are documented in IA and are conducting within the inspection intervals. 2 2 15 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: Yes, NY DPS website has inspection reports available and cases open to the public. 1 1 16 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: There were no SRCR in 2017. 1 NA 17 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Speicher responds to requests from NAPSR and PHMSA. 1 1 18 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: There are no open waivers currently requiring follow-up action from the state. 1 1 19 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, Mr. Speicher attended the 2017 NAPSR National Meeting. 1 1 20 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site ? http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm Needs Improvement = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9

b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Evaluator Notes: Yes No Needs Improvement Performance metrics don't show any negative trends but were discussed with Mr. Speicher. There were no issues identified. 21 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State 1 1 Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) Has the State updated SICT data? No = 0 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: In discussion with Mr. Speicher there is no foreseeable trouble in meeting the new SICT inspector-person days. The new inspector totals are in line with previous years required days. 22 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding Pipeline Flow Reversals, Product Changes and Conversions to Service? See ADP-2014-04 Needs Improvement = .5 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, inspectors discuss flow reversals during the inspections. Need to assure question is added to inspection form or notebook to assure question is asked and documented. 23 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS is mainly complying with Part C of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 42 Total possible points for this section: 42 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10

PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes there are procedures for steps to follow from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation. Section 4.9.4.10 and 4.11 are the Compliance Procedures giving guidance on how to accumulate violations, evidence, and correspondence and documentation. 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. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility inspected outlining any concerns; and Yes No Needs Improvement f. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. Yes compliance actions are sent to company officers. b. Yes, reviewed compliance letters and inspection reports and probable violations are documented. c. Yes, reviewed compliance letters to check for resolution of probable violations. d. Yes, the NYDPS monitors the progress of probable violations. e. Yes, the inspector conducts an exit interview and provides a copy of the probable violation. f Yes, the inspector provides the operator usually at the end of the inspection the preliminary findings. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, compliance actions were issued for all probable violations discovered during inspections. Reviewed inspection reports to assure all probable violations were addressed. Per rate case agreements, enforcement protocols have been established to address the instances of non-compliances identified. Any associated penalties will be documented and tracked through the rate case proceedings. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, the NYDPS gives reasonable due process to all parties. The operators can contest findings and have hearing if requested. 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: DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11

Yes, Mr. Speicher is familiar with the civil penalty process. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 1 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NY DPS has demonstrated the fining authority, although there has not been a civil penalty issued in the last couple of years on hazardous liquid operators. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS is mainly complying with Part D of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12

PART 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: Yes, Chapter 9 of the Guidance Manual. 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: Yes, Chapter 9 of the Guidance Manual has details of procedures on how to handle incident notifications. During business hours the Albany office receives notifications and are routed accordingly to each region. After hours incident notifications are received by designated inspectors for each region. 3 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NYDPS investigates all incidents that meet the PHMSA requirements. Reviewed PDM and there were no reportable incidents in 2017. There was an investigation conducted to check on a potential release but turned out not to be pipeline related. 4 Were all accidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 NA 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: There were no incidents in 2017 but the NY DPS did investigate a potential leak and was documented accordingly. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There were no compliance actions initiated due to an accident investigation in 2017. 1 NA 6 Did the state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking 1 1 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: Yes, contact for PHMSA Eastern Region office is Mike Yazenboski. In 2017 this changed to Accident Investigation Division. Assist PHMSA with any information requested. DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13

7 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes any lessons learned from accidents are shared during NAPSR Region meeting. 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS is mainly complying with Part E of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14

PART 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: Boring/drilling Procedures are reviewed by inspectors. When operator makes changes to their procedures they must submit to the NYDPS for review. 2 Did the state inspector verify pipeline operators are following their written procedures 2 2 pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, review procedures on a 4 year rotation which demonstrates the inspectors are reviewing one call procedures which include marking and notifications. Also during incident investigations involving third party damage, the inspectors verify procedures were followed by the operator. 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 2 2 facilities to its regulated companies? (i.e. such as promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices encouraging adoption of the 9 Elements, etc.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NYDPS promotes CGA best practices. In addition, the NYDPS has incorporated performance measures into the rate cases for several jurisdictional pipeline operators. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated 2 2 trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes the NYDPS collects and evaluates the data associated with pipeline damages per 1,000 locate request. NY published the 2016 Gas Safety Performance Measures Report on June 14, 2017, in Case 18-G-0260. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS is mainly complying with Part F of the Evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15

PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Norfield Industries Inc. Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Jonathan Mercurico and Yaw Asante Location of Inspection: East Setauket and Port Jefferson, NY Date of Inspection: June 27, 2018 Name of PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Evaluator Notes: 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: Yes. Both terminal manager and compliance officer 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, inspector used PHMSA IA inpection form. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,valve keys, half cells, etc) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. All necessary equipment was available during inspection. 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 activities consisted of rectifier inspection, valve maintenance, IMP dig and tank inspection. 2 2 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16

Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. No issues. 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: Yes. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: None found. 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: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17

F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Also checked right-of-way, tank inspection and IMP dig. DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18

PART 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: NY utilizes IA and PIMs as directed by the Region. 1 1 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: Results are documented in IA and concerns are detailed in PIM including necessary exhibits. 1 1 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: Documentation were submitted typically within 30 days. 1 1 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: Probable violations were identified and detailed in PIM's and IA reports. 1 1 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent 1 1 safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No conditions occurred that required reporting, however NY continuously notifies PHMSA of activities on Interstate pipelines. 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Documentation were submitted typically within 30 days. 1 1 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: : NY submitted documentation to support compliance and supported PHMSA during hearings. 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NY continued to provide thorough IA inspections and details on probable violations in PIMs within required timeframe. The NYDPS is mainly complying with Part H of the Evaluation. Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19

PART I - 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 3 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 4 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 5 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NY DPS does not have a 60106 Certification. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 084003768 2017 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 38845