# 2011 ND NG Program Evaluation - nd2011ngprogramevaluation (North Dakota; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA nd2011ngprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2011 ND NG Program Evaluation - nd2011ngprogramevaluation (North Dakota; 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 North Dakota.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nd-ng-program-evaluation-nd2011ngprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nd-ng-program-evaluation-nd2011ngprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-nd-ng-program-evaluation-nd2011ngprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/1276/nd2011ngprogramevaluation.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 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 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 1

2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2011 Natural Gas State Agency: North Dakota Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/28/2012 - 08/30/2012 Agency Representative: Manager PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Brian Kalk, Chairman Agency: North Dakota Public Service Commission Address: 600 East Boulevard Drive, Dept. 408 City/State/Zip: Bismarck, ND 58505 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No Patrick Fahn - Director Compliance and Competitive Markets, Aaron Morman, Program 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 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C Program Performance 42 36 D Compliance Activities 14 13 E Incident Investigations 4 4 F Damage Prevention 8 7 G Field Inspections 11 10 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 104 95 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 91.3 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural 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 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: No point deduction, but to make technically correct Palmers trailer court should be listed as MM in future. NDSU Campus housing should be listed as operator. MDU LP system in Hettinger should be listed as an LP Operator. No deduction as notes on these have been made on past several progress reports. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 (A1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed with no issues. 1 1 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 3 (A1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Listed accurately. Palmer trailer court MM should be listed separately. Accurately described in notes no points will be deducted. 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress Report Attachment 4 (A1d) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues, none to report 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 (A1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 (A1f, A4) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Small number of operators, inspection files easily found and reviewed 2 2 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 (A1g) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 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: No issues 1 1 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 3

9 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 (H1-3) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 4

PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspections (B1a) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: outline is acceptable 2 2 2 IMP Inspections (including DIMP) (B1b) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Full points given, but attention needs to be given in this area including DIMP. Recommend touching base with South Dakota who shares major operators with them to evaluate any needs and make sure they are up to date. 3 OQ Inspections (B1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Minor mention. Also recommend thorough plan reviews, possibly also coordinate with South Dakota. 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspections (B1d) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: They have damage prevention enforcement. No issues. 5 On-Site Operator Training (B1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues. 1 1 6 Construction Inspections (B1f) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 7 Incident/Accident Investigations (B1g) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues 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 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) DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 5

f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: No issues mainly based on limited amount of operators they deal with. Recommend review of inspection units to ensure appropriate. (i.e. separate Excel inspection units for Fargo and Grand Forks) 9 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Inspections are relatively straight forward an appropriate for their quantity and size. Overall plan is due for review as new program manager settles into position. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 106.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.94 = 206.80 Ratio: A / B 106.00 / 206.80 = 0.51 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: points next year. Person days met. Based on inspections completed so for in CY2012, it will be nearly impossible for program to achieve full 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: Bob Bachmeier had completed all required training prior to resignation. 2012 will present a challenge. 3 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate 2 1 adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 (A5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Due to new program manager and no apparent succession plan. Improvement will be accomplished with time in program and attention to program performance. 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: Most items addressed except for analyzing damage prevention data. Still needs to be addressed. Other issues on schedule for 2013 bienniel legislative session. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 (A3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Joint seminar with South Dakota held earlier in year. 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: Inspection records reviewed and all appear to have been inspected within required time frames. DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 5 5 North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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: It had apparently been some time since inspection forms have been updated, thorough review needed. Things such as verification of EFV installations have not been added. Reviewed current distribution inspection form with Aaron and advised on need to make sure complete. 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: None in state 1 NA 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: None in state 1 NA 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Inspection forms appear that there is discussion on this item. Recommend more specificity in inspection forms. 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including 1 1 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: Emergency program is reviewed and discussed on inspection forms. Again, as noted in previous question, more question specificity should be added to forms. 12 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Data Initiative (G6-9,G16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Operator reports are reviewed and made part of standard inspection. Notes made on inspection forms. 2 2 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely 2 1 manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 (G10-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Nothing uploaded, but OQ inspections appear to have been completed as required. Discussed how to do this. No applicable IMP activities appear to have been, but recommend review of these items. DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 8

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 Evaluator Notes: On transmission inspections. No issues. 1 1 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: Applicable questions appear on checklist, recommend review to make sure current issues are addressed. 2 2 16 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 (I4-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Several general field reviews had been completed. Recommend review of company plans, recommend possible joint review with S. Dakota on common operators. 17 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 2 1 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: Virtually no activity has occured, although the operators have limited applicability to most IMP activities. Time should be spent in review and possible consultation with other states with common operators. 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? Info Only Info Only 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: Time needs to be spent making sure they get caught up on these inspections, and possible assistance with states with common operators. 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being 2 1 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: Plans being up to date have been reviewed, but no effectiveness evaluations conducted on operator. This needs to be addressed. 20 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). (G20-21) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: PSC web has links to sources with good information. 1 1 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 9

21 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 (B6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 22 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 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: At beginning of checklist. No issues. 1 1 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: No issues. 1 1 24 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Checklists in need of updating and overall review. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 36 Total possible points for this section: 42 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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 3 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: NOPV's are issued through docketed process and appears to be able to close any loop necessary. Compliance actions need to be sent to company officer which is not addressed in procedure and should be put into practice. 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: Full points as process was followed and compliance loop closed. Company officer issue addressed in previous question. No issues in CY2011. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (B15) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues. Granville Municipal violations all acted on and pending. 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: Review indicates no issues. 2 2 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) (B27) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: penalties have been used appropriately. 2 2 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: Yes 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 13 Total possible points for this section: 14 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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: No issues 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: No incidents on record in CY2011 1 NA 3 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 NA 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: No incidents on record in CY2011 4 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? (D6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: N/A 1 NA 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: No issues 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: Participation at region meeting 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 12

Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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: Addressed on checklist. 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: Compliance is checked during standard inspection. On checklist. 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: Active one-call enforcement. No issues 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) (E4,G5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Continued from previous year. Recommend having operator provide data. 2 1 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 14

PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Montana Dakota Utilities Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Aaron Morman Location of Inspection: Bismarck, ND Date of Inspection: August 30, 2012 Name of PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Inspector has literally been on job less than a month. Most of time was spent in coaching vs. evaluation of inspector. 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: Operator was contacted in advance. 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: Inspector used forms developed by previous staff. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (F4) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes 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.) (F5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes 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) (F7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities d. Other (please comment) Evaluator Notes: Inspector did a good job in reviewed procedures. Time was also spent reviewing information in procedures vs. what was being conducted in field DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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: Time will be needed in education on regulations due to time in program. 2 1 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: No issues 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: 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: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 16

F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Time was spent observing new service line installation. No issues DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 11 North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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 NA 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 NA 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 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.) (C4) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 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? (C5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 NA 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 NA 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 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Not an Interstate Agent Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA 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: N/A Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 802744946 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation North Dakota NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Page: 19
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 32240