# 2022 NY NG Program Evaluation - ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation (New York; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation
- **title:** 2022 NY NG Program Evaluation - ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation (New York; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2022-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2022 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for New York.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-ng-program-evaluation-ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-ng-program-evaluation-ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-ng-program-evaluation-ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-12/ny-2022-gas-program-evaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation for NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE Document Legend PART: O -- Representative, Dates and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- State Qualifications D -- Program Performance E -- Field Inspections F -- Damage prevention and Annual report analysis G -- Interstate Agent/Agreement States DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 1

2022 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2022 Gas State Agency: New York Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/10/2023 - 07/28/2023 Agency Representative: Kevin Speicher, Chief Pipeline Safety and Reliability Brent Mahan, Utility Supervisor Suresh Thomas, Utility Supervisor Nicole Patrick, Administrative PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, State Liaison, PHMSA State Programs Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Rory Christian, Chair Agency: New York Department of Public Service Address: Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 3 City/State/Zip: Albany, NY 1223-1350 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Evaluator Guidance for conducting state pipeline safety program evaluations. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2022 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). 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 than the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the appropriate notes/comments section. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and they OBJECTIVELY reflect the state's program performance for the question being evaluated. Increasing emphasis is being placed on how the state pipeline safety programs conduct and execute their pipeline safety responsibilities (their performance). This evaluation, together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments, provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 0 0 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C State Qualifications 10 10 D Program Performance 50 50 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 10 10 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 100 100 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 2

PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? (*items not scored on progress Info Only Info Only report) Info Only = No Points a. Stats On Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 b. State Inspection Activity Data - Progress Report Attachment 2 c. List of Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 3* d. Incidents/Accidents Data - Progress Report Attachment 4* e. Stats of Compliance Actions Data - Progress Report Attachment 5* f. List of Records Kept Data - Progress Report Attachment 6 * g. Staff and TQ Training Data - Progress Report Attachment 7 h. Compliance with Federal Regulations Data - Progress Report Attachment 8 i. Performance and Damage Prevention Question Data - Progress Report Attachment 10* Evaluator Notes: a. Jurisdictional authority under 60105/Interstate agency agreement with PHMSA. Number of operators has changed from 104 last year to 87. The largest drop was in gathering line operators. Total inspection units inspected were 153 out of 185 or 82.7%. This is higher from previous year. b. Number of inspection person-days 3225.39 was higher than previous year. Construction days were 626.26 and exceed the minimum requirement of 414. c. Attachment 1 & 3 match operators and ID numbers. d. Four incidents occurred and match PHMSA's Portal data. e. Number of carryover violations were 19. An improvement from previous year number of 23. f. Records appear to be listed correctly. g. A review of TQ training records found 31 inspectors are Category I, 2 inspectors are Category II and 6 inspectors are Category III. Twenty inspectors have attended the LNG course. h. Adopted civil penalty amount of $250,000 with no upper limit. g. No issues with description of program activities. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 3

PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities 5 5 for each of the following inspection types: Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard Inspections, which include Drug/Alcohol, CRM and Public Awareness Effectiveness Inspections b. TIMP and DIMP Inspections (reviewing largest operator(s) plans annually) c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) g. LNG Inspections Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, provides in Chapter 4. Intrastate Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Inspection and Compliance Program, Section 4, page 32 the pre and post inspection activities for standard inspections. b. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 4, section 4.5, Program Audits, page 41. Comprehensive distribution integrity management plan inspections have been completed and their results are documented using Inspection Assistant (IA). The recommendation letters, any associated findings, and audit documentation are located in r:\division\gaswater\Safety (1) or r:\division\gas water\safety. c. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 4, section 4.5, Program Audits. Comprehensive operator qualification inspection plan inspections have been completed and their results are documented using Inspection Assistant (IA). Documentations are located in r:\division\gaswater\Safety (1) or r:\division\gas water\safety. d. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 8. Damage Prevention. e. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 1. 1.5 Training. f. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 6. Construction. g. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 5. LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG). 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each unit, based on the following elements and time frames established in its procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Length of time since last inspection b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Centers, etc.) e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? 4 4 Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 4. b. - e. These items are listed in Chapter 4, section 4.2 General Provisions: operator data, general provisions, record audits, field audits, program audits, operations and maintenance procedure audits, verification audits, special audits, probable violations, letters to operators, audit correspondence and documentation, operator training, total state field inspection activity, and national transportation safety board recommendations. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats (excavation, corrosion, natural forces, outside forces, materials and welds, equipment and other related factors. They currently have a "5 Year Record Audit Plan" that identifies the high, medium and low risk functions broken down on a five- year schedule. High risk are performed annually, medium risk functions every other year and low-risk function on a five-year basis. f. A review of Appendix 4A confirm inspection units are broken down correctly. 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 3 3 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 4

a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, this information is provided in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 4. Section 4.9 to 4.11 pages 46-47. b. This is addressed in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 4. Section 4.10. Letters to Operator, page 46 c. This is addressed in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 4. Section 4.11 Audit Correspondence and Documentation page 48. 4 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state 3 3 actions in the event of an incident/accident? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Mechanism to receive, record, and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports b. If onsite investigation was not made, do procedures require on-call staff to obtain sufficient information to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on-site. Evaluator Notes: a. This is addressed in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 9. ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION pages 74-79. b. Yes, this item is found in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 9, section 9.3.2 Notification During Non-Business Hours 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 5

PART C - State Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled training requirements? (See Guidelines Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead b. Completion of Required DIMP/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Completion of Required LNG Training before conducting inspection as lead d. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager e. Note any outside training completed f. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) 5 5 Evaluator Notes: A review of TQ Blackboard report shows 31 individuals have completed the required basis courses and qualified gas inspectors. Twenty-five inspectors are Gas IMP qualified, twenty have completed the LNG course and thirty have completed the root cause course. Program Manager and four inspectors attended the Appalachian Underground National Association of Corrosion Control Course in West Viriginia on May 9-13, 2022. 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Kevin Speicher, Chief Safety and Reliability Division, has been the program manager for 12 years. He has completed all required courses at TQ and has over 28 years of experience in gas pipeline safety. He is knowledgeable about the Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program and currently is NAPSR Vice-Chair. 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 6

PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 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 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: The random generated operators to be checked for this evaluation period consisted of 7 distribution, 6 transmissions, 4 gas gathering & 3 LNG operators. A review of inspections reports provided by Program Manager on each operator in an Excel spreadsheet found the time intervals were met in accordance with NY DPS procedures to at least once every 5 calendar years. All operators listed below were reviewed annually on Records, Field and O&M Audit. Distribution: WOODHULL MUNICIPAL GAS SYSTEM, CORNING NATURAL GAS CORP, KEYSPAN ENERGY DELIVERY - LONG ISLAND, KEYSPAN ENERGY DELIVERY - NY CITY, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP, NATIONAL FUEL GAS DISTRIBUTION CORP - NEW YORK, CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO OF NEW YORK. Transmission: CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORP, ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP, CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO OF NEW YORK, KEYSPAN ENERGY DELIVERY - NY CITY, NORTH COUNTRY GAS PIPELINE. Liquified Natural Gas: LNG PLANT GREENPOINT, ASTORIA & HOLTSVILLE LNG. A review of records found the inspections were conducted during CY2022 and final letters issued to company officers at the end of the audit period. The DIMP/TIMP inspections were performed in CY2017/CY2019 in accordance with their inspection intervals. No issues were found with the time intervals for the operators selected for this review. 2 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1. Do inspection records indicate that adequate reviews of procedures, records and field activities, including notes and the appropriate level of inspection person-days for each inspection, were performed? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Part 193 LNG Inspections f. Construction g. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) h. IMP/DIMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: Yes, NY DPS inspection forms cover all federal and state code requirements. They use the Federal IA or state forms when conducting inspections. A review of the inspection reports in the selected random operators for this evaluation period confirmed all applicable sections were completed with required information. 3 Is state verifying monitoring (Protocol 9/Form15) of operators OQ programs? This should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals established in the operator's plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, OQ plan inspections are scheduled and completed on a five-year schedule. A review of OQ inspections for CY 2022 in DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 7

the random selected operators list were reviewed and found complete with information on the operator's updated plan and persons performing covered tasks. 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP and DIMP)? This 2 2 should include a review of plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operator's plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subparts O and P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the implementation plans of the state's large/largest operators(s) being reviewed annually to ensure they are completing full cycle of the IMP process? b. Are states verifying with operators any plastic pipe and components that have shown a record of defects/leaks and mitigating those through DIMP plan? c. Are the states verifying operators are including low pressure distribution systems in their threat analysis? Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, a comprehensive distribution integrity management plan review is conducted annually on each larger operator. This is accomplished during the audit and at quarterly meetings with all operators. b. This is discussed at quarterly meetings with the operators. All operators who use plastic pipe must provide information to NY DPS about all fusions. All defected fusions must be reported monthly and annually to NY DPS. c. Yes, this is addressed in their DIMP plan audits. 5 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA that have been deemed acceptable response based on PHMSA reviewing these items during the evaluation process): Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken; b. 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); c. 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; d. 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; e. 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; f. Operator procedures for considering low pressure distribution systems in threat analysis? g. Operator compliance with state and federal regulations for regulators located inside buildings? 2 2 Evaluator Notes: a Yes, this is reviewed on each company during their inspection audits. Information found is entered into the NY DPS database. b. Yes. Surveillance of cast iron is covered during the inspection and recorded in the NY DPS database. c. Yes. NY DPS issued its Gas Emergency Plan Order on December 18, 2013. The order requires operators to submit emergency plans with consideration of the best practices developed by staff in addressing this issue. d. Yes. All incident notifications are reviewed by NY DPS staff and documented in their Pipeline Audit System (PAS) application. e. Yes. As directional drilling/boring procedures are submitted by the operator or its contractors they are reviewed by NY DPS staff members. If an area of concern is found, they provide comments back to the operator or the contractor. f. Yes. All threat analysis procedures submitted by the operator are reviewed by staff members. After reviewing the document comments are provided back to the operator. g. Yes. Inside regulators are documented for each operator. This information is entered in the NY DPS database. DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 8

6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued 1 1 since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item is reviewed during the inspection audit, meetings, seminars or other official discussions with operator's representatives. 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to 10 10 resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? b. Were probable violations documented properly? c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations e. Did state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? f. Can state demonstrate fining authority for pipeline safety violations? g. Does Program Manager review, approve and monitor all compliance actions? (note: Program Manager or Senior Official should sign any NOPV or related enforcement action) h. Did state compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing, if necessary. i. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator outlining any concerns j. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. (Incident investigations do not need to meet 30/90-day requirement) Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, a review of compliance letters in CY2022 confirm letters were sent to company officers. b. Yes, letters contained probable violations and action required by operator to comply. c. Yes, information on resolving violation(s) was contained in the letters. d. Yes, Program Manager and Supervisors routinely review compliance letters to ensure response from operator have been received. e. Yes, a review of twenty compliance letters confirm action for violations have been issued. f. Yes, the civil penalty assessed in CY2019. The amount was $727,500 against several operators. g. Yes, Program Manager and Supervisors are continuing to review compliance letters to ensure responses from the operators have been received within the required thirty days. h. Yes, compliance action is provided in the letter to the operator. i. Yes, a review of compliance letters and inspection reports confirm a post inspection briefing was performed. j. Yes, compliance letters were sent within 90 days after the inspection audits. 8 (Incident Investigations) Were all federally reportable incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? 10 10 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 9

h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, this item is covered in NY DPS Staff Guideline Manual, Chapter 9. During normal business hours, all incident notifications are received by Staff. The person receiving the notification will record the information given on Form GW-1 Safety Section Incident Notification Report. Staff will determine if further investigation is required and, if necessary, contact local supervision that covers the area of the incident for any required follow-up action, which may include dispatching Staff for an on-site investigation, or contacting the utility for updated information. Each business day, Staff will verify that all reports of incidents that warrant field investigation have been dispatched to local supervision. b. Yes. c. Yes. After hour incident notifications will be received by those employees designated. The notification lists will be updated annually (January) and will be provided to the operators. In addition, Staff will notify the utilities as necessary to remove names of Staff who leave the Section. When taking a non-business hour notification, all information received shall be recorded on Form GW-1 Section Incident Notification Report. Staff is advised to keep a supply of the forms at home and/or have an electronic version. Staff receiving an off-hours notification should judge whether an immediate investigation is warranted based on the information obtained. Factors to consider include reported fatalities or injuries, property damage, or media attention. If Staff determines that an investigation is warranted, Staff shall, regardless of the time of day, attempt to contact their direct supervisor, or the Section Chief. If unable to make contact, Staff shall decide whether to commence an immediate investigation. When in doubt, Staff should opt to self-dispatch to the incident location and inform supervision as soon as practicable by leaving a voicemail and/or e-mail correspondence. d thru f. Yes, information on incidents were recorded in NY DPS data base. g. Yes, compliance action was taken when a violation was found pertaining to an incident. h. Yes, information received from PHMSA AID confirmed NY DPS responded and provided follow-up information on all incidents that occurred in NY. i. Information on incidents or accidents are presented at the NAPSR Eastern Region Meeting. 9 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 = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No response was required from the letter sent to Chair Rory Christian on September 1, 2022. 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Info Only Info Only Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The last seminar was conducted in Cooperstown, NY on October 3-6, 2022. The seminar was both a gas and hazardous liquid program. 11 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, they periodically review this information with the operator during their inspection audits. Info Only Info Only 12 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, this is accomplished via their website, New York Advisory Committee, and quarterly meetings with the larger operators. 13 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.7 1 1 New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 10

Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: York on 12/16/2022. A review of PHMSA Portal found one safety related condition reports in CY2022. Consolidated Edison Company of New 14 Was the State responsive to: 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; and b. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: Yes, responses to NAPSR/PHMSA surveys are being provided by Program Manager. Responses to WMS is being entered into the system and reviewed by staff members. 15 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. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No waiver or special permits were issued in CY2022. 1 1 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, pipeline safety files or records were maintained correctly and available for review by this writer. Info Only Info Only 17 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT). Has the state updated SICT data? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 3 3 Evaluator Notes: A discussion with Program Manager found he is familiar with SICT and recently submitted the data into the software program for calendar year 2024. 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication Info Only Info Only site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A review of NY performance metrics was conducted with Program Manager. It was noted the chart on leakage indicated an downward trend in total leaks eliminated/repaired. The number of leaks decreased from 212 to 197 leaks per 1,000 miles in CY2022. Number of leaks scheduled for repair decreased from 106 to 96. 19 Did the state encourage and promote operator implementation of Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), or API RP 1173? This holistic approach to improving pipeline safety includes the identification, prevention and remediation of safety hazards. Info Only = No Points a. https://pipelinesms.org/ b. Reference AGA recommendation to members May 20, 2019 Evaluator Notes: Yes, this item is included in all enforcement agreements with operators. Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of the review. Info Only Info Only DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 11

Total points scored for this section: 50 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 12

PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the Info Only Info Only comments box below) Info Only = No Points a. What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) b. When was the unit inspected last? c. Was pipeline operator or representative present during inspection? d. Effort should be made to observe newest state inspector with least experience Evaluator Notes: ?Tuesday (7/25/23): The type of inspection performed included a leak survey, construction and cathodic protection readings on Corning Natural Gas facilities in Corning, NY. The inspection was an observed of the monitoring of a leak survey on Corning Natural Gas system by contractor Jeffrey Wakefield with USIC. Another observation was an inspection of the cast iron replacement project being performed by Corning Natural Gas crew on Dodge Avenue. The remaining portion of the day was an observation of cathodic protections readings along the natural gas pipeline at Park Avenue, Riverside Drive and Front Street. The inspection was performed by Paul Smura. ?Wednesday (7/26/23): This was a construction inspection on New York State Electric & Gas Company in Marcellus, NY. The audit consisted of witnessing the permalock service tee inspections by Pipeline Robotics Energy Services and odorization readings performed by NYSEG. Observations were made on Chilmark Street service lines in Marcellus and Garden Street located in Seneca Falls, NY. These inspections are the result of an enforcement action that the NYDPS Commission took after an incident that occurred in 2022. Odorization readings were taken Auburn Road and other locations. Kim Guzzo was the inspector on this audit. ?Thursday (7/27/23): This was a construction and field audits in the Syracuse area on National Grid distribution system. Reviewed the redesigned regulator station located at East Taft Road in Cicero, NY. Service line inspections were performed at Comstock Avenue and other locations in the Syracuse area. Will Koch was the inspector performing the inspection audits. 2 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, all three inspectors were using the NY DPS inspection forms. 2 2 3 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the inspection 10 10 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Procedures (were the inspector's questions of the operator adequate to determine compliance?) b. Records (did the inspector adequately review trends and ask in-depth questions?) c. Field Activities/Facilities (did inspector ensure that procedures were being followed, including ensuring that properly calibrated equipment was used and OQ's were acceptable?) d. Other (please comment) e. Was the inspection of adequate length to properly perform the inspection? Evaluator Notes: Yes. It was observed by this writer each inspector asked questions to each of the company representatives about the work being performed at each of the construction sites. A detailed review of the company's records and procedures were checked for compliance with pipeline safety regulations. 4 From your observation did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) 2 2 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 13

Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, all three inspectors are Active Gas Inspectors and have completed all courses at TQ. 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If 1 1 inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, each inspector at the close of the inspection audit conducted an exit interview with the crew foreman or engineer on site. Excellent communications between both parties was observed by this writer. 6 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: Yes, safety glasses, steel hoe boots and safety vest were worn by all inspectors and construction crew members. Safety signs and vehicles lights were used to alert traffic and local residents pertaining to the construction work being performed. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: No loss of points occurred in this section of state program evaluation. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 084003768 2022 Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, Page: 14

PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: year. Yes, operator's annual reports are reviewed in-office by staff engineers. They continue to review data and included this information in their NY DPS Performance Measures Report that is released to the Commissioners and general public each 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 2 2 determining root causes and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence? (192.617) Has the state verified that the operators have appropriately identified excavators who have repeatedly violated one-call laws and damaged their facilities. Have the operators taken steps to mitigate that risks? (192.1007) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, companies are reporting damages and investigate the root causes of damages to their facilities and filing the information with the NY One Call Center. The reported damage report is reviewed by NY DPS. Operators are maintaining a list of contractors or other individuals that have damaged their facilities. They are using this information to meet with the contractor to increase their awareness of their facilities to prevent future damages. Efforts continue to be used by NY One Call and NY DPS to promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices and included damages in the CGA Dirt program. 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation 4 4 Damage? Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: a. Yes, each report is reviewed by NY DPS staff for accuracies and entered their Performance Measures Report. b. & c. Yes, this is reviewed by NY DPS staff and entered their Performance Measures Report. d. Yes, this is reviewed during the construction inspection and when a damage report has been submitted. e. No, the operator uses a contractor firm for personnel to locate facilities. The contractor does not requalify an individual if they mismark a facility. They release the individual from employment. f. In CY2022 the number was 318. g. Unknow due to NY Dig Law does not allow the contractor to dig until the operator has located 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 44515