# 2011 NY NG Program Evaluation - ny2011ngprogramevaluation (New York; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA ny2011ngprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2011 NY NG Program Evaluation - ny2011ngprogramevaluation (New York; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2011-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2011 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for New York.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-ng-program-evaluation-ny2011ngprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-ng-program-evaluation-ny2011ngprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-ny-ng-program-evaluation-ny2011ngprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/2191/ny2011ngprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2011 Natural Gas 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 -- Incident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1

2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2011 Natural Gas State Agency: New York Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/06/2012 - 08/24/2012 Agency Representative: Kevin Speicher PHMSA Representative: Dinubhai (Dino) N. Rathod Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. Garry A. Brown, Chairman Agency: New York Public Service Commission Address: Three Empire State Plaza 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 2011 (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 9 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 12.5 C Program Performance 44 42 D Compliance Activities 14 14 E Incident Investigations 9 9 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 118 112.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 95.3 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas 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 1 1 Report Attachment 1 (A1a) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section 5 of Public Servicce Law (PSL) states jurisdiction- Transportation, Sale & Distribution of Naual Gas or Manufactured or mix of both 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 (A1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 0.5 Evaluator Notes: needed. Discussed with On-Site Training details per State Guideline Manual- DPS will review again and make minor adujustment, as 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 (A1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Accurate information in Attachmnets 1 & 3. 1 1 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress 1 0.5 Report Attachment 4 (A1d) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Discussed with DPS. Non-Reportable reports for Customer inside piping will be removed from Attachment 4. DPS agreed to revise and only submit Incidents Reportable per 191.3 requirements. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 (A1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Discussed with DPS Attachmnet 5 -violations by jurisdictional opertors only for pipeline safety regs (Part 192 etc.). DPSclarified that list included 192.614 damage prevention violations enforced under States 753 requirements. It does not include any non-jurisdicitonal excavators. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 (A1f, A4) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: NY DPS Reginal offices have capability to access inspection database on their server. 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 (A1g) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Training Records (Completed and Wait-Listed curses) were verified and found to be accurate and complete. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 (A1h) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Various Rules and Amendments- Adpoted within acceptable time-frame 1 1 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas 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 (H1-3) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1. DPS- indicated Normalized Excavation Damage Rates show downward trend. 2. Inventories of leak-prone pipes continue to decline. 3. DPS continues to participate in rate case proceedings to develp and negotiate company specific performance measures and incentive mechanisms for inclusion in Rate Agreements 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4

PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspections (B1a) 2 1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Discussed with DPS need for revising State Guideline Manual (SGM) Standard inspection Procedures to reflect PHMSA Guideline Manual for States -Glossary (pages vii) and Chapter 5- Para 5.1 (3) (a) Inspection. SGM revision has been underway for a long time. DPS commited to finalize revisions in a timely manner. DPS agreed to keep me informed of progress. 2 IMP Inspections (including DIMP) (B1b) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section 4.7.3 3 OQ Inspections (B1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section 4.7.2 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspections (B1d) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: SGM- Section VIII Damage Prevention Inspections 5 On-Site Operator Training (B1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 0.5 Evaluator Notes: DPS need to review and revise On-Site Operator Training per PHMSA State Guideline Manual Glossary and Chapter 5 Para 5.1 (3) (c). It is specifically for "Requested & Annnounced Presentation" at an Operator training/ safety Mtg, Gas/Liquid seminar/con etc. 6 Construction Inspections (B1f) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Section VI 1 1 7 Incident/Accident Investigations (B1g) 2 1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: SGM-Section IX. 1 Discussed with DPS the need to streamline internal review process/ administative procedure. It it essential that necessary Incident Failure Reports be finalized in a timely manner. 2. DPS agrred to review and revise Attchment 4 of Progress Report and remove "Non-Reportable" incidents (Customer Piping/ internal piping beyond customer meter). 8 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? (B2a-d, G1,2,4) Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5

c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic areas, Population Density, etc) Yes No Needs Improvement e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Yes No Needs Improvement Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: 9 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 12.5 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas 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 (A12) Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 4246.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 23.22 = 5107.48 Ratio: A / B 4246.00 / 5107.48 = 0.83 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Ratio greater than 0.38. Ok 5 points 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 Guidelines for requirements) Chapter 4.4 (A8-A11, G19) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Checked DPS inspectors training details. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate 2 2 adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 (A5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Kevin Speicher has gained extensive pipeline safety experience at NY PSC and completed required T&Q training. He works closely with ER and PHMSA HQ. 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 (A6-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 1 Evaluator Notes: NY DPS resonded Jan 24, 2012. DPS was unable to resolve Civil Penalties not being substancially same as Federal penalties. DPS will take up this issue and work thru legislative process for successful passage. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 (A3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: NY T&Q seminar was held in Saratoga Springs Oct 2010. 2 2 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 (B3) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: 5 5 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7

7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 1 Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1 (B4-5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Discussed with DPS need for inspection form/ checklist changes to reflect federal code requirements. DPS is in process of upgrading electronic database capabilites including various inspection forms. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B8) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 10 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings and determine whether the procedures adequately address the possibility of multiple leaks and underground migration of gas into nearby buildings Refer to 4/12/01 letter from PHMSA in response to NTSB recommendation P-00-20 and P-00-21? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B9) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 (B10,E5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DPS staff reviews operator records of previous incidents and failures, 3rd party damage and leak-responses 1 1 12 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for 2 2 accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Data Initiative (G6-9,G16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS reviews Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 (G10-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: CY 2011 DPS uploaded OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner 2 2 14 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? (G14) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8

Evaluator Notes: DPS periodically reviewed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submissio 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 (I1-3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS conducted Drug & Alcohol) D&A inspections. 2 2 16 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N (I4-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS conducted 52 OQ inspections in CY 2011; One Program review in 2012. 2 2 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are up to date? This should include a previous review of IMP plan, along with monitoring progress on operator tests and remedial actions. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 (I8-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS conducted 3 Gas Transmision IMP inspections and finalized. 2 2 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DPS intends to review operators DIMP Plans, Procedures and records Info Only Info Only 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS performed Public Awareness (PA) Program reviews 2 2 20 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). (G20-21) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: NY DPS has a public website: www.dps.ny.gov Public has ability to "Search" for "Commission Agenda" Summary. It provides pertinent details of variopus commission actions. 21 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 (B6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9

Evaluator Notes: DPS staff worked wth PHMSA ER and provided timely updates 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? (G13) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: DPS attends quarterly Safety meetings with each Gas Operator. It's agenda typically covers Advisory Bulletins, Federal Register Notices etc. 23 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? (H4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: DPS actively participated in NAPSR Survey Requests 1 1 24 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 42 Total possible points for this section: 44 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas 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 (B12-14, B16, B1h) Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified Yes No Needs Improvement b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: 1 Information verified in DPS audit reprots and supporting docs 2Progress status- state letters sent periodically, as needed. 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 (B11,B18,B19) Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: DPS follows compliance prodedures per State Guideline Manual Ch 5.1 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (B15) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS tracks compliance action via spreadsheet. 2 2 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. (B17, B20) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) (B27) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS Prog Mgr is very familiar with NY state process. DPS does consider imposing Civil Penalties for repeat violators based on current requirements (within 2 months). DPS plans to propose consideration for 12 month period. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety Info Only Info Only violations? (new question) Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DPS has used civil penalty for pipeline safety violations in the past. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 14 Total possible points for this section: 14 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11

PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 incidents, including after-hours reports? And did state keep adequate records of Incident/ Accident notifications received? Chapter 6 (A2,D1-3) 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: 2 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 (D4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: DPS staff typically would additional information to help make a determination. 1 1 3 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? (D5) Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: 4 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? (D6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 5 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 (D7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 6 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) (G15) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DPS shares pertinent details of incidents at NAPSR ER meeting and Stat T&Q seminar 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12

Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13

PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? NTSB (E1) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? (E2) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground facilities to its regulated companies? (i.e. such as promoting/adopting the CGA Best Practices encouraging adoption of the 9 Elements, etc.) (E3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS actively participates in damage prevention activities. 2 2 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) (E4,G5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS colletcs and analyzes damage data from jurisdictional operators. NY PSC publised State Performance Measures in June 2012. 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 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14

PART 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: Corning Natural Gas (CNG); NYSEG Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Mike McCutcheon/ Kris Harsh/ Brett Mahan Location of Inspection: Corning; Binghamton Date of Inspection: 08/08/2012 and 08/09/2012 Name of PHMSA Representative: Dinubhai (Dino) N. Rathod Evaluator Notes: CNG- Maxwell Compressor Station; Pressure Regulator- Canada Road Station,Corning; NYSEG- DIMP Review and Pipe Replacement in Binghamton area 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? (F2) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: CNG and NYSEG operator Reps were present during field inspection 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) (F3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Inspectors used PHMSA inspeciton forms 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (F4) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection 1 1 to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) (F5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Insepctor reviewed for necesary operator equipment at Compressor Station, Pressure Reg Station and Pipe Repalcement construction locations. 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) (F7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: DIMP implementation- brief status overview 2 2 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15

7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) (F8) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: DPS inspector exhibited adequate knowledge of pipeline safety 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) (F9) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DPS inspector discussed items of conceren at Canada Road Pressure Reg Station, Corning. 1 1 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) (F10) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No probable violations were discovered during inspection activities. 1 NA 10 General Comments: What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) 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 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16

F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: DIMP implementation status-overview Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17

PART H - Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? (C1) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? (C2) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? (C3) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 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.) (C4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? (C5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? (C6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? (C7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Interstate Pipleines. Info Only Info Only Based on feedback received from Mark Wendorff (PHMSA ER), no issues were found for CY 2011 Performance year for Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18

PART I - 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? (B21) 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? (B22) 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.) (B23) 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? (B24) 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? (B25) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 6 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? (B26) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NY is a 60105(a ) Pipeline Safety Program. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 084003768 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation New York NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 32942