# 2019 ND NG Program Evaluation - ND 2019 Gas Program Evaluation (North Dakota; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA ND 2019 Gas Program Evaluation
- **title:** 2019 ND NG Program Evaluation - ND 2019 Gas Program Evaluation (North Dakota; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2019-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2019 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for North Dakota.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nd-ng-program-evaluation-nd-2019-gas-program-evaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nd-ng-program-evaluation-nd-2019-gas-program-evaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nd-ng-program-evaluation-nd-2019-gas-program-evaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2021-04/ND%202019%20Gas%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation for NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 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: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1

2019 Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2019 Gas State Agency: North Dakota Rating: Agency Status: 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes Date of Visit: 08/31/2020 - 09/04/2020 Agency Representative: Caleb Simburger, Gas Pipeline Safety Program Manager & Inspector PHMSA Representative: David Appelbaum, State Evaluator Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Brian Kroshus, Chairman Agency: North Dakota Public Service Commission Address: 600 East Boulevard Avenue City/State/Zip: Bismarck, ND 58505-0480 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 2019 (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 8 D Program Performance 50 44 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 4 4 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 94 86 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 91.5 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 2

PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? Info Only Info Only 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. Reviewed progress report with Pipeline Datamart. NDPSC is a 60105 certificated state and has total jurisdictional authority on all natural gas, LNG and gathering systems. They have 21 operators and 22 units. b. Inspection History list from Program Manager (PM) confirm inspection days for each type of inspection matched attachment 2. c. Compared operators listed in Attachment 3 to Pipeline Datamart (PDM). Information on operator names and ID numbers seem correct. d. One incident occurred in CY2019. A review of PDM confirm this information is correct with dates, causes and property damages. e. Information in attachment 5 appeared correct. f. No issues. Records listed in previous year match current year filing. g. Attachment 7 appeared accurate. CY 2020 will likely show a deduction on the Progress Report for Inspector Qualifications due to staff turnover. h. ND has automatic adoption authority. i. Attachment 10 was not a copy paste from CY2018. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3

PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities 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: Yes. Updated procedures (August 26, 2020) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 5 5 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? Evaluator Notes: Yes. Updated procedures (August 26, 2020) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 4 4 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 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: Yes. Updated procedures (August 26, 2020) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 3 3 4 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state 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: Yes. Updated procedures (August 26, 2020) contain all the requisite elements to satisfy this question. 3 3 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4

5 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The PSC had been criticized in years past for having outdated procedures. The new PM has since update their procedures that the Commission has approved. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 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 4.4 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: ND only had one fully qualified working inspector in CY 2019, who was the only one to lead inspections. This inspector took a LNG course in August 2019, and his first LNG inspection is scheduled for CY 2021. 2 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 = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 3 Evaluator Notes: Program Manager has less than one year in position and no prior experience in pipeline safety and has not completed all required TQ courses. During field evaluation, a few NOPV's were discovered with an accompanying corrective action order opportunity. PM has no experience with corrective action orders, and limited experience with compliance actions in general. North Dakota was warned last year that replacing a PM who has no pipeline experience would likely yield point deductions. PM clearly displays the right aptitude to be successful in his position, but will require further training and experience to 3 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: 10 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 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 0 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: All inspections were not completed within 60 days of established dates. A review of the records found that the PSC missed the inspection intervals as follows: (The following are overdue) OQ - 4 inspections Standard - 9 inspections IM - one inspection CRM - 3 inspections DP - one inspection PA - one inspection 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: The NDPSC uses the federal inspection forms for its inspections. Upon a review of randomly selected 2019 inspection files all applicable portions of the forms were completed appropriately. 3 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 established in the operator's plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The NDPSC spent 19 inspection person-days conducting OQ inspections. OQ plans were reviewed and field inspections conducted. 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP and DIMP)? This 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 Subpart P 2 1 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 7

Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the state's largest operator(s) plans being reviewed annually? 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: The NDPSC spent 11 inspection person-days conducting IMP inspections, and 8 inspection person-days on DIMP. They were overdue on one IM inspection. NDPSC admitted they have not been reviewing the state's largest operator's plans annually. They advised they are reviewed during the IMP inspections which are on a 5-year interval. 5 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA 2 2 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? Evaluator Notes: NDPSC utilizes the PHMSA forms which include the review of operators response procedures for leaks caused by excavation damage near buildings. NDPUC reviews incident reports during investigations and inspections to assure adequate operator response to incidents. North Dakota has no cast iron pipe. 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Question is embedded in the inspection forms. 1 1 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to 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? 10 10 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8

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: The NDPSC investigated an incident in January 2019 that occurred in Fargo. Their investigation completed in February and identified two NOPV's. The NDPSC did not issue their compliance letter to the subject operator until December 19th, more than 10 months following the completion of the investigation. NDPSC needs to be more prompt in communicating compliance actions. Since the matter was ultimately addressed, and in lieu of recent staffing changes, no points will be deducted for this question. All other aspects of this question were sufficiently addressed 8 (Incident Investigations) Were all 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? 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: NDPSC investigated one incident in CY 2019. See question D.7. for details 10 10 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Chairman Kroshus' response letter to Zach Barrett was received on October 22, 2019. PHMSA's outbound letter was dated September 5, 2019, thus the State responded within the 60-day time requirement. 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: NDPSC held a seminar in April 2019 that had 107 attendees. Info Only Info Only 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: DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9

Yes, NDPSC asks operators during inspections if they have submitted information into the NPMS database. A review of the of PDM was done and NPMS and AR data was consistent. 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, the NDPSC has an open record system on their website where the public can view any cases issued by the NDPSC. 13 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: There were no SRCs in 2019. 1 1 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; b. Operator IM notifications; and c. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: No issues found with regard to these questions. 1 1 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: 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. 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points 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. 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: Discussed the accuracy of the inspection day information submitted into the SICT. The numbers entered for 2020 may be difficult to meet (165 days) due to the loss of staff in 2018, and subsequent down time due to health of the NDPSC's only qualified inspector. 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: 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. DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 10

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: The NDPSC has not yet deployed a process that encourages the PSMS or API 1173. PM will work to find an appropriate venue to promote this effort. Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 44 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 11

PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the 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 Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: On August 31st, Aaron Mormon inspected Xcel Energy perform a meter change at an apartment building in Fargo, ND. NOPV's were discovered and compliance actions should be forthcoming. On September 1st, Mr. Mormon inspected Dakota Gasification Company's Northern Border Tie in facility near Hebron, ND. No NOPV's or operator concerns were noted. 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, the inspector had an inspection form to use as a guide and to document the inspection. 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: Inspector was very thorough in all aspects of both audits. 4 From your observation 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: Inspector was very competent with pipeline safety regulations and inspection protocols. 2 2 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If 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. Inspector performed a sufficient exit interview. 1 1 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) Info Only Info Only DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12

c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Evaluator Notes: Inspector performed all aspects of this audit in a safe manner. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 13

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: Yes, PHMSA encouraged the NDPSC to further challenge their operators on root cause data entered in Part D of the AR. 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 2 NA 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: Program maintained some high level damage data. PHMSA encouraged PM to dive deeper into the specific root causes of operator's excavation damages and challenge the accuracy of that data, and what the operators is doing to comply with other regulatory requirements. 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D ? Excavation 4 NA 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: Program had a high level understanding of their excavation damage data. PHMSA indicated that the Program needs to better assess and demonstrate they have assessed operator's excavation damage data (specific to the questions above) and ensured damages were properly categorized based on apparent root cause. Otherwise, point loss could occur in the future. 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? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. What stakeholder group is causing the highest number of damages to the pipelines? Operator, contractor, locating company or public. b. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to stakeholders causing the most damages? c. Has the state evaluated which of the following best describes the reason for the excavation damages; i.e., operator or contractor not following written procedures, failure to maintain marks, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools were required, failure to test-hole (pot hole), improper backfilling practices, failure to maintain clearance or insufficient excavation practices. d. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to address the causes of excavation damages? 2 2 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14

Evaluator Notes: Program has collected sufficient data to understand causes of excavation damage. North Dakota's 2019 damages per 1000 locates was right at the National Average of 2.6. State has been trending down (in the right direction) since 2014, with a steady decline in the number of damages. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 15

PART G - Interstate Agent/Agreement States Points(MAX) Score 1 Were all inspections of interstate pipelines conducted using the Inspection Assistant program for documenting inspections. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 2 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was notice of all Info Only Info Only identified probable violations provided to PHMSA within 60 days. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: 3 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was PHMSA immediately notified of conditions which may pose an immediate safety hazard to the public or environment? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 4 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection did the state coordinate with PHMSA if inspections not were not included in the PHMSA Inspection Work Plan? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 5 Did the state take direction from and cooperate with PHMSA for all incident investigations conducted on interstate pipelines? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 6 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 802744946 2019 Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 32990