2011 UT NG Program Evaluation - ut2011ngprogramevaluation (Utah; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 1Official PDF1200 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 Utah Division of Public Utilities 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: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 1#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 22011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2011 Natural Gas State Agency: Utah Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/10/2012 - 07/12/2012 Agency Representative: Al Zadeh, Program Manager PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Chris Parker, Director - Division of Public Utilities, Mr Agency: Utah Department of Commerce Address: 160 East 300 South City/State/Zip: Salt Lake City, UT 81114 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No 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 8 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C Program Performance 41 40 D Compliance Activities 14 5 E Incident Investigations 8 8 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 11 11 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 107 95 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 88.8 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 2#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress 1 0.5 Report Attachment 1 (A1a) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Clarified that when no operators in state, should still show as 60105 with Zero operators. Needs improvement as MM inspection units was reported incorrectly. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 (A1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed days - appear to be calculated correctly during file review. Field days are summarized for each inspector. 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress 1 0.5 Report Attachment 3 (A1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Inspection units for Questar for intrastate transmission not broken out. Reviewed inspection unit total should match attach 1 inspection units. 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: Found no reportable incidents needing to be included. 1 1 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 (A1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 0 Evaluator Notes: Compliance Activities for Questar could not be reconciled. Discussion with David Hassel indicated that he considered each item to be a noncompliance and contrary to instructions and poor record keeping needs to be addressed on future submissions. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 (A1f, A4) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Full points given, but attention needs to be given on "official" files to make sure any future generation of staff can find necessary information and understand any course of action being taken. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 7 (A1g) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues. Dave Coombs, part-time retired training did not show up on course list, informed Al Z to contact TQ to make sure he is listed active. 8 Verification of Part 192,193,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report 1 1 Attachment 8 (A1h) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Allowing full points as comments were made indicating civil penalties even though marked incorrectly. 2 Points were deducted on 2011 progress report scoring which affected 2012 allocation.DUNS: 143528862 Utah 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 3#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 49 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: No issues 1 1 10 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Time should be taken to make sure the progress report is filled out correctly and do not necessarily assume what was done the year before is correct. Ask for liaison review if necessary. Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 4#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspections (B1a) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Basic procedures in place. 2 2 2 IMP Inspections (including DIMP) (B1b) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Basic in place, should review to insure robust 3 OQ Inspections (B1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 4 Damage Prevention Inspections (B1d) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 5 On-Site Operator Training (B1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 6 Construction Inspections (B1f) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: installations. 1 1 Should review to ensure appropriate amount of time is spent looking at service line installations and not just main 7 Incident/Accident Investigations (B1g) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 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: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 5#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 6f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: 9 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Procedures are very basic. In practicality with 99% of all service lines in state belonging to Questar Gas. Recommend analyzing amount of field time they spend in each area based on inspection unit sizes. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 6#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, 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 (A12) Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 280.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 2.37 = 520.67 Ratio: A / B 280.00 / 520.67 = 0.54 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: No issues 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled the T Q Training Requirements? (See 5 5 Guidelines for requirements) Chapter 4.4 (A8-A11, G19) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead? Yes No Needs Improvement b. Completion of Required DIMP*/IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead? *Effective Evaluation CY2013 Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: All required training has been completed. Recommended curriculum review of all TQ courses in case there are various CBT's that might have been updated and not taken by inspectors. Recommend Public Awareness seminar as this was ignored. Also needs to contact PHMSA TQ to insure retired employee David Coombs is listed as active employee even though he is retired, but working part time. 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 (A5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, but needs to be sure attention is paid to details 2 2 4 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct 2 1 or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 (A6-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Response was received in a timely manner, but the issues of tracking and following up on compliance activities are still not resolved. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 (A3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: August 2010 was last seminar, and indicated that seminar will be held in 2013. 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: DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 5 5 Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 7#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 8All operators appear to have been inspected within intervals. 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 (B4-5) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Uses Federal forms and all requirements appear to have been covered, care should be taken to make sure details and discussions with operators are documented of entire inspection. 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: No cast iron 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: No cast iron 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 Evaluator Notes: included on new checklist. No issues. 1 1 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 192.617? Chapter 5.1 (B10,E5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: No issues 1 1 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: No issues. 2 2 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 (G10-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Database review shows they have been uploading. No issues 2 2 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 8#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 914 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: No issues. On transmission inspection 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: No issues 2 2 16 Is state verifying operators OQ programs are up to date? This should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals determined in the operators plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N (I4-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: File review indicated programs were reviewed this past year. 2 2 17 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). 49 CFR 192 Subpart 0 (I8-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviews appear to be complete. Advised to keep reviewing operator progress and spend time evaluating any issues discovered 18 Is state verifying operator's gas distribution integrity management Programs (DIMP)? This should include a review of DIMP plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operators plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: In process, no issues at this time. Needs to make sure this is addressed in current calendar year. Info Only Info Only 19 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. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Evaluated on annual inspection, needs to make sure up to date with Pub Awareness issues via TQ training that can be done on line 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: No issues, any enforcement cases would be made public. Stakeholder participation through Blue Stakes 1 1 21 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 (B6) DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 NA Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 9#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 10Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: None 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: Current checklist used reviews this appropriately. 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: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 40 Total possible points for this section: 41 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 10#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 11PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 2 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: Improvement needed. Any municipal operator should have communication send to city manager or mayor and not operating personnel (Eagle Mountain). Also follow-up to compliance activities have not appeared to been done in a timely manner. Operator response requests went well past requested dates before any follow-up completed. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 0 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: Municipal compliance actions did not include timely and complete information. Questar compliance issues were only communicated in exit interview according to inspector, which was not documented and poor documentation. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (B15) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 0 Evaluator Notes: Compliance actions identified to Questar were not issued or documented. This includes compliance action discussed during PHMSA field evaluation in June 2011. It was noted that Questar was not following procedures for valve inspection, this was not documented on any report or communication to company. 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: Although compliance actions need help, parties appear to have been given due process 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: 2 1 Program should at least advise operators that civil penalties are possible in non-compliance communication. 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: Discussed with program that the need is in place and they need to be sure they are using fining authority when necessary. This is not happening at this time. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Compliance activities continue to be of concern. They will be asked to outline more enhanced procedures and send us a plan within 60 days of our evaluation letter to improve their analysis of compliance activities and proper documentation of such Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 11#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 12activities. This should include program manager or higher level of review of these action. PHMSA Liaison consultation has also been offered for review any any mentoring needed for this program. Total points scored for this section: 5 Total possible points for this section: 14 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 12#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 13PART 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: 1 1 Full credit, although no reportable incidents there were incident follow-ups and proper determinations made. 3 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? (D5) Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences when appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Full credit as noted on previous question. 4 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident investigation? (D6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 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: Region meeting participation, no issues 1 1 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 13#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 14Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 14#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 15PART 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: Questar would be only operator this is applicable. Reviewed with no issues. 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: Adequate reveiws done with Questar on progress 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: Close participation with Questar and Blue Stakes participation. 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: Trends are reviewed with Questar which accounts for 99% of all services in state. 2 2 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 15#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 16PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Eagle Mountain Municipal and Questar Gas Company Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Jimmy Betham, David Hassel Location of Inspection: Eagle Mountain and Salt Lake City Area Date of Inspection: July 11 and July 12, 2012 Name of PHMSA Representative: Rex Evans Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Visited City of Eagle Mountain 7-11 to follow up on non-compliance activities with Jimmy Betham. New service line construction on 7-12-12 at 3030 S. 650 West in Syracuse and 1139 south 1480 West in Clearfield, UT with David Hassel. 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: No issues 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: No issues 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (F4) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: No issues 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: Applicable to new service line construction. No issues during site observance. 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: Follow-up to non-compliance issues at Eagle mountain appear to be sufficient. Field activities during new construction sites were adequate for items reviewed. DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 16#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 177 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and 2 2 regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) (F8) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Adequate, although recommend any non-compliance activites such as occured at Eagle mountain be reviewed with program manager. 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: No violations discovered during this visit. 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 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 17#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 18E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Eagle Mountain Operator Qualification plan should be thoroughly reviewed as their are questions to the legitimacy of the contractor they hired to conduct requalification. Also the purging qualifications of the Questar contractor should be confirmed. Total points scored for this section: 11 Total possible points for this section: 11 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 18#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 19PART 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: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 19#

UT NG Program Evaluation, 2011, page 20PART 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: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 143528862 2011 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Utah Utah Division of Public Utilities, Page: 20#