Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA nd-2017-gas-program-evaluation
2017 ND NG Program Evaluation - nd-2017-gas-program-evaluation (North Dakota; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA nd-2017-gas-program-evaluation
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation for NORTH DAKOTA 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: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 22017 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2017 Gas State Agency: North Dakota Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No Date of Visit: 09/24/2018 - 09/28/2018 Agency Representative: Patrick Fahn, Director, Public Utilities Division (Interim Program Manager) PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Liaison Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Randel Christmann, Chaiman Agency: North Dakota Public Service Commission Address: 600 E. Boulevard Ave City/State/Zip: Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0480 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 11 C Program Performance 49 49 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Incident Investigations 6 5 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 113 110 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 97.3 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 3PART 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified number of operators and units on Progress Report with the NDPSC files and annual reports submitted in PDM. The numbers were accurate. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified inspection days with the NDPSC database for total number of days. The numbers reported on the Progress Report seem accurate. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified total number of operators with annual reports and NDPSC files. There is one operator which seems to be a new operator (Crestwood Midstream Partners LP) that filed an annual report and was not on NDPSC list. The NDPSC will contact operator to add to their list of operators. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: There were no reportable incidents in 2017 but the NDPSC did investigate a 3rd party hit which turned out not to meet the reportable criterial. There were two days reported as incident investigation in the progress report. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: compliance actions. There were a total of 4 compliance actions issued in 2017. The total numbers were accurate with previous carry over 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: There are no paper files kept in the office. All reports and correspondence is kept electronically. All NOPVs are viewable through the NDPSC website. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Verified training with NDPSC records and SABA. 1 1 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 4Adopted 193 at the end of 2017 due to a new LNG operator. The civil penalty amount was verified with the ND laws. 49-07-05.1 states the civil penalty law for ND PSC. 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: Plan to get LNG training completed by next year. Complete all Damage Prevention and Public Awareness inspections next year. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC 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: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 2 2 consistency in all inspections conducted by the state? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum - pre-inspection activities, inspection activities, post-inspection activities. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Section A and B of Gas Pipeline Safety Program Manual has standard inspection procedures. The Procedures give guidance to inspectors on how to perform a standard inspection which include pre and post inspection activities records review and field inspection. The standard inspections include a records review and a field inspection. 2 IMP and DIMP Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 0.5 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: IMP/DIMP plan inspections are conducted at intervals not exceeding 5 years. Procedure does not give enough guidance on how to perform an IMP/DIMP inspection. Procedure basically references a form to uses as a guidance. Procedure needs to include field verification inspections and give more detail on how to conduct an IMP/DIMP inspection. 3 OQ Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that insure 1 0.5 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: Procedures are In place to give guidance to inspectors conducting OQ inspections. Procedure basically references a form to uses as a guidance. The procedure needs more detail to give better guidance on how to conduct an OQ inspection. Procedures need to include field inspections (Protocol 9). 4 Damage Prevention Inspection procedures should give guidance to state inspectors that 1 0.5 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: Procedure does not give enough guidance on how to perform Damage Prevention inspections. Procedure basically references a form to uses as a guidance. Procedures need more detail and guidance on how to conduct an Damage Prevention 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: Yes, had 4 operator training days in 2017. Documentation of operator training is kept in the NDPCS "Gas Safe" program. Procedure is outlined in Section F of Manual. 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. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 0.5 North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 6Construction procedures need further detail to give enough guidance to inspectors. Procedure basically references a form to uses as a guidance. The procedures need to give more detail and guidance on how to perform a construction inspection. 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary each 6 6 unit, based on the following elements? Yes = 6 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-5 a. Length of time since last inspection (Within five year interval) Yes No Needs Improvement b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) Yes No Needs Improvement c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) Yes No Needs Improvement d. Locations of operators inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic 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: Yes, the NDPSC procedures have prioritization of inspections which include previous violations, time since last inspection. special activities being undertaken by operator, high risk/HCA areas, and facility pipe type (cast iron, bare steel, etc). Units are broken down by town except for large operators. Large operators are broken down by operating areas. 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Procedures for IMP/DIMP, OQ, Construction, and Damage Prevention inspections do not give enough detail or guidance to an inspector in performing each type of inspection. The NDPSC needs to amend their procedures to give more guidance to inspectors. Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 13 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 6#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? (Director of State Programs may modify with just cause) Chapter 4.3 Yes = 5 No = 0 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 194.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.50 = 330.00 Ratio: A / B 194.00 / 330.00 = 0.59 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: NDPSC data. The total inspection person days to total person days ratio is above the required .38. Verified progress report days with 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 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 e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector. Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: a. All inspectors completed all OQ training. b. Completed all DIMP/IMP training. c. Yes, both inspectors completed the root cause training. d. No outside training in 2017. e. Yes all inspectors are qualified to lead inspections. Only course which is required is the LNG course which inspector is scheduled to take in August 2019. State does not have an inspector who has taken the LNG Course. 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 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Craig Reamann was program manager in 2017 but left the Commission on September 2018. Patrick Fahn is the interm Program Manager which he is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: There was no response required. 2 2 5 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Have a seminar every other year which they co-host with S. Dakota. The in between years the seminar is in S. Dakota. DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 86 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: Yes, reviewed inspection reports and tracking system to assure all types of inspections are being inspected in accordance with their procedures. The NDPSC changed their procedures to inspect each operators records and field every two 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 NDPSC uses the PHMSA forms for all inspections except for specialized inspection like construction or field inspections. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was 1 1 examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There is no cast iron but the NDPSC asks operators if they found any new cast iron and also review annual reports for any cast iron reported. 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including 1 1 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There is no cast iron pipelines in the stat of North Dakota. Inspectors still verify with operators and annual reports for any cast iron. 10 Did the state review operator emergency response procedures for leaks caused by 1 1 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: yes, the NDPSC utilizes the PHMSA forms which include the review of operators response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings. 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes, review incident reports during investigations and inspections to assure adequate operator response to incidents. 12 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: Yes, the NDPSC reviews annual reports for accuracy and analyze data. DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 913 Has state confirmed intrastate transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, ask operators during inspections if they have submitted information into the NPMS database. 1 1 14 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: 2 2 Yes, the NDPSC conducts Drug and Alcohol inspections to verify operators are comply with the regulations. 15 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 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NDPSC conducts OQ program inspections at 5 year intervals and conduct OQ field inspections during their inspections. 16 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 2 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). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually? Are replies to Operator IM notifications addressed? (formerly part of Question C-13)). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports for IMP program inspections. The NPSC did not conduct any IMP inspections in 2017 but have in the previous years and are within their inspection intervals as established in their procedures. 17 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). (Are the State's largest operators programs being contacted or reviewed annually?). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection reports to assure DIMP inspections are being conducted. 2 2 18 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being 2 2 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 192.616 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed inspection files and tracking chart to assure inspections are within the 5 year interval as established in their procedures. 19 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: DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 10Yes, the NDPSC has an open record system on their website where the public can view any cases issued by the NDPSC. 20 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) 1 1 Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There was one SRCR which has follow up and was submitted to the Central Region. The SRCR was due to overpressuring of a pipeline due to malfunction of a regulator. The MAOP of system is 60 psi and the highest recorded pressure was 74 psi. Discussed concern of SRC due to recent incident in Massachusetts. 21 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? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The transmission inspection form has question included and is verified during inspections. NDPSC needs to add question to their Distribution Inspection form to document that they are verifying with operator of any know defects and mitigation measures. 22 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, the program manager responds to surveys and information requested by NAPSR or PHMSA. 1 1 23 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. No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 There is one waiver involving MDU which allows them to conduct atmospheric corrosion surveys every 4 years instead of 3 years but they have to conduct leak surveys every 4 years instead of 5. The waiver conditions are verified during inspections. 24 Did the state attend the National NAPSR Board of Directors Meeting in CY being evaluated? No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Yes = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Craig Reamann attended the National NAPSR meeting in 2017. 1 1 25 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication 2 2 site - http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Yes = 2 a. Discussion of Potential Accelerated Actions (AA's) based on any negative trends Yes No Needs Improvement b. NTSB P-11-20 Meaningful Metrics Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Discussed the performance metrics which seem to be trending in a positive direction. Outstanding leaks, hazardous leaks and leaks repaired have all gone down in the total number which is a positive trend. In addition the damages per 1,000 has decreased in last several years. The NDPSC reviews and analysis annual reports for any dramatic changes from previous years and figure out what caused those changes. 26 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT) Has the State updated SICT data? No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Discussed the accuracy of the inspection day information submitted into the SICT. The numbers entered in 2018 were DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 11accurate at the time but Commission procedures changed and the SICT calculated days maybe to high. The NDPSC changed interval inspections from every year to every two years. The loss of Craig Reamann also may impact the inspection days if the NDPSC does not hire an inspector within a reasonable time. 27 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: The NDPSC needs to assure they are asking the operator if appropriate actions were taken if any pipelines had flow reversals. There is no question in the Transmission form that covers this question 28 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C21- The NDPSC needs to assure the question is being verified with distribution operators. The question is part of the Transmission inspection form but is not in the Distribution form. C27-The NDPSC needs to assure they are asking the operator if appropriate actions were taken if any pipelines had flow reversals. There is no question in the Transmission form that covers this question Total points scored for this section: 49 Total possible points for this section: 49 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 12PART 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: a. Procedures state that correspondence is sent to company official or gov't official if a municipality. b. Procedures has guidance from the issuance to the resolution of compliance cases. Program Manager and inspector has guidance to avoid breakdown or delays in compliance actions. c. Procedures has steps on closing out cases with outstanding probable violations. 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 member 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: Yes, reviewed inspection reports and compliance correspondence to assure the NDPSC is following their compliance procedures. a. Yes, correspondence is sent to company officials. b. Yes, all probable violations were documented. c. Yes, all probable violations were resolved. d. The inspector and program manager routinely review files for progress. e. Inspector conducts post inspection briefing at end of inspections. f. Operator is notified of NOPV within 30 days after the date of the inspection. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, reviewed files to assure any probable violations were addressed by the NDPSC. 2 2 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show 2 2 cause" hearing if necessary. Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties The operators can request a hearing to contest any probable violations issued. 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 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 13Evaluator Notes: Yes, the Program Manager is familiar with the civil penalties process. There were several civil penalties issued in 2017. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NDPSC issued civil penalties on 4 compliance actions last year and collected on 3 cases. 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC 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: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 14PART E - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/ 2 1 accident? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC has procedures in place to conduct investigations in the event of an incident but lack detail and guidance. There is no incident/accident investigation activities or guidance on how to conduct an investigation. In addition the procedure does not mention the investigation for non-compliance of regulations. Procedures need to be amended to give better guidance to inspectors. 2 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 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: There is a mechanism and procedure on how to receive notifications from an operator. The mechanism seems to work but the procedures need further explanation or detail on how the notifications are received and routed.The procedure is confusing to figure out who is to be contacted during an incident and how the information is routed. In addition the procedure does not mention after hours notification of an incident. In addition the procedure needs further explanation on which incidents require an onsite investigation. a. The NDPSC is aware of the MOU between NTSB and PHMSA. Although the NDPSC is aware of the MOU there needs to be some mention of the MOU in their procedures. b. Yes the NDPSC has acknowledgement of the Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident. Although the NDPSC is aware of the cooperation, there needs to be some mention of the cooperation in their procedures. 3 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were no reportable incidents in 2017. 1 NA 4 Were all incidents 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 when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: There were no incident investigations conducted in 2017 due to no reportable incident notifications. 5 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: There were no reportable incidents in 2017 1 NA DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 156 Did the state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking 1 1 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 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Did not assist region or AID in incident investigations but do assist when contacted by AID thru email for any information requested. 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: Yes, lessons learned are shared during the NAPSR Regional meeting. 1 1 8 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: E1- Incident investigation procedures need to be amended to give more guidance to inspectors in receiving notices and how information if given to the inspector leading the investigation. E2- Notification procedures are a confusing to understand on who is receiving notification and how its routed to the inspectors. The procedures need some amending to clarify confusion. a. The NDPSC is aware of the MOU between NTSB and PHMSA. Although the NDPSC is aware of the MOU there needs to be some mention of the MOU in their procedures. b. Yes the NDPSC has acknowledgement of the Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident. Although the NDPSC is aware of the cooperation, there needs to be some mention of the cooperation in their procedures. Total points scored for this section: 5 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 16PART 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? NTSB Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Construction form mentions boring but is to vague to give inspector guidance to ask about directional drilling/boring procedures and actions taken to protect their facilities from dangers posed by drilling or other trenchless technologies. NDPSC needs more detail on construction form or add guidance to procedures. 2 Did the state inspector verify pipeline operators are following their written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 2 2 Yes, the inspection forms cover the operator procedures pertaining to one call system and the processing of notifications. 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.) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the NDPSC participate in damage prevention meetings and seminars to promote CGA best practices. 2 2 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? (This can include DIRT and other data shared and reviewed by the pipeline safety program) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, there is dedicated employee who has data available and monitors damages throughout the state. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only The ND PSC is mainly complying with Part F of the Evaluation. F1- Need more detail on review of Drilling/boring procedures. Construction form mentions boring/drilling but needs further guidance. Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 17PART 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: Montana Dakota Utilities (MDU) Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Aaron Morman, Inspector Location of Inspection: Bismarck, ND Date of Inspection: September 27, 2018 Name of PHMSA Representative: Agustin Lopez, State Evaluator Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Mr. Aaron Morman conduct an OQ inspection of MDU while investigating/monitoring a leak. Reviewed procedures and OQ Task and assured technician followed the procedures. The AOC were also verified with the technician while performing the task. 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, the operator was notified with enough notice to allow representatives to be present during 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) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector had an inspection form to use as a guide and to document the inspection 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector utilized a form to document the inspection results. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,pyrometer,soap spray,CGI,etc.) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspector checked to for the equipment needed to perform the task. 1 1 2 2 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: The inspector reviewed leak monitoring procedures, the technicians OQ records and performed a field inspection of the leak monitoring. DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 17#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 187 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Morman is very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety program and regulations. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Mr. Morman conducted an exit interview at the completion of the inspection. 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: There were no probable violations identified during the inspection. 1 1 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 18#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 19E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Evaluated Mr. Aaron Morman conduct an OQ inspection of an MDU technician while conducting a leak monitoring which also involved a valve installation on the customer meter. Mr. Morman verified qualifications of technician and observed to assure technician was following procedures. Mr. Morman performed and excellent inspection. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 20PART 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: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 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: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 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: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 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: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 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: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC is not an interstate agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 20#
ND NG Program Evaluation, 2017, page 21PART 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 NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement. 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 NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement 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 NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement 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 NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement 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 NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement 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 NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC does not have a 60106 Agreement Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 802744946 2017 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.