# 2010 ME NG Program Evaluation - me2010ngprogramevaluation (Maine; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA me2010ngprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2010 ME NG Program Evaluation - me2010ngprogramevaluation (Maine; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2010-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2010 PHMSA natural gas program evaluation for Maine.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-me-ng-program-evaluation-me2010ngprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-me-ng-program-evaluation-me2010ngprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-me-ng-program-evaluation-me2010ngprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/751/me2010ngprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Incident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 1

2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2010 Natural Gas State Agency: Maine Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 06/13/2011 - 06/17/2011 Agency Representative: Gary A. Kenny PHMSA Representative: Dino N. Rathod, P.E. Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Thomas Welch, Chairman Agency: Maine Public Utilities Commission Address: 101 Second Street City/State/Zip: Hallowell, ME 04334 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 2010 (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 certification/agreement attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART F): 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 F, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A General Program Qualifications 26 24 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 24.5 24 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Incident Investigations 3.5 3.5 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 9 9 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 7 TOTALS 96 91.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 95.3 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 2

PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 8 7 1 Did the state submit complete and accurate information on the attachments to its most current 60105(a) Certification/60106 (a) Agreement? (NOTE: PHMSA Representative to verify certification/agreement attachments by reviewing appropriate state documentation. Score a deficiency in any one area as "needs improvement". Attachment numbers appear in parenthesis) Previous Question A.1, Items a-h worth 1 point each Yes = 8 No = 0 Needs Minor Improvement = 3-7 Needs Major Improvement = 2 a. State Jurisdiction and agent status over gas facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Gas facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Gas pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the gas pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: Discussed with PUC need to review and revise Attachments 1, 5 and 8. PUC agreed to contact PHMSA State Programs (Zach Barrett) for implementing corrections in FedStar. 1) Attachment 1- Intrastate transmission- No. of inspection unit and units should be filled in as "2"; 2) Attchement 5 Recheck No. of Probable Violations found, number corrected and to be corrected as well as No. of Compliance Actions (CA0 Taken. (Follow instruction on Page 6 of Certification); 3)Attachment 8- Item 7h- Part 198. Cite State Law/ Regs and Effective date; Actual Civil Penalty Limits- PUC to describe limits, if different that federal limits. Provide this information in Notes for Attchment 8. 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance with 60105(a) Certification/60106(a) Agreement requirements (fatality, injury requiring hospitalization, property damage exceeding $50,000 - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports)? (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC 65-407-Chapter 130 Safety & Accident Reporting Requirements; PUC Contact List also covers after-hrs coverage information. 1 1 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety TQ seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if state requested seminar, but T&Q could not provide, indicate date of state request for seminar. Seminars must be held at least once every 3 calendar years.) (Chapter 8.5) Previous Question A.4 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC hosted Joint T&Q seminar as part of New England Pipeline Safety Rep (NEPSR) in Ogonquit, ME. Oct 2010 2 2 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Pipeline Safety files- Hard copies and electronic maintained in a secure bldg, accessible. 1 1 5 Did state records and discussions with the state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? (Chapter 4.1, Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 1 SLR Notes: Gary Kenny brings wealth of Pipeline Safety experience. He continues to take required T&Q training. He works closely with NEPSR, NAPSR and PHMSA 6 Did the state respond in writing within 60 days to the requested items in the Chairman's letter following the Region's last program evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC responded Nov 4, 2010 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 1 1 Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 3

7 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the 1 1 previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.8/A.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 PUC hired an inspector Jim Atkins. 2. PUC also allowed inspectors to take out of town travel for T&Q courses and be able to respond to emergencies on designated mandated furlough days. Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year TQ training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding TQ courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all TQ courses, but are in a program which will achieve the completion of all applicable courses within 3 years of taking first course (5 years to sucessfully complete), or if a waiver has been granted by the applicable Region Director for the state, please answer yes.) (Chapter 4.4) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 3 No = 0 SLR Notes: Gary and Jim Atkins continue their T&Q training courses. 3 3 9 Brief Description of Non-TQ training Activities: Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: Info Only Info Only For Operators: For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: SLR Notes: 10 SLR Notes: Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q OQ courses and Computer Based Training (CBT) before conducting OQ Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.12 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 11 Did the lead inspectors complete all required TQ Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: At this point, Gary Kenny has only completed WBT for IMP and he is waitlisted for IMP training in Jan 2012. 1 1 12 Was the ratio acceptable of Total inspection Person-days to Total Person-days charged to the program by state inspectors? (Region Director may modify points for just cause) (Chapter 4.3) Previous Question B.12 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 109.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.97 = 212.67 Ratio: A / B 109.00 / 212.67 = 0.51 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 5 5 SLR Notes: DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 4

13 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Info Only Info Only Question B.13 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Jim Atkins joined PUC in Jul 2010. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 24 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 5

PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators including LNG) (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes + Incorporate LNG Yes = 6.5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Standard Inspections (Including LNG) (Max points = 2) b IMP Inspections (Including DIMP) (Max points = .5) c OQ Inspections (Max points = .5) d Damage Prevention (Max points = .5) e On-Site Operator Training (Max points = .5) f Construction Inspections (Max points = .5) g Incident/Accident Investigations (Max points = 1) h Compliance Follow-up (Max points = 1) SLR Notes: 6.5 6 Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Discussed with PUC need for Inspection Plan to include OQ , Drug & Alcohol and IMP Plan reviews and field verifications, as necessary. 2 Did the written Procedures for selecting operators adequately address key concerns? (Chapter 5.1) Previous 2 2 Question B.2, items a-d are worth .5 point each Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b History of Operator/unit and/or location (including leakage , incident and compliance history) Yes No Needs Improvement c Type of activity being undertaken by operator (construction etc) Yes No Needs Improvement d For large operators, rotation of locations inspected Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: Inspection Performance 3 Did the state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in its written procedures? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: (CY 2011). Discussed with PUC need for performing OQ, IMP, D&A and Public Awareness (PA) inspections PUC agreed to work-in these activities moving forward 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.6 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 NA Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 6

NO SRC in CY 2010 7 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) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: 8 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) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 9 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) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 10 SLR Notes: 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? (NTSB) Previous Question B.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous 1 1 Question B.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Discussed with PUC example of PHMSA's Compliance and Enforcement and definitions of NOPV and Compliance Actions (Certification and Guideline Manual). It is essential to receive a response in "Writing" from the Operator for PUC's letters (NOPV, WL, NA, CA etc). 12 SLR Notes: Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question D(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 13 SLR Notes: Does the state have written procedures to notify an operator when a noncompliance is identified as specified in the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 14 Does the state have a written procedure for routinely reviewing the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(5)) Previous Question D(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: it and implement ASAP. Discussed with PUC need for a process to keep track of pending actions and closure upon completion of necesary remedial actions. PUC agreed to consider DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 7

15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question D(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 1 16 SLR Notes: Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that prompt corrective actions were taken by operators, within the time frames established by the procedures and compliance correspondence, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? Previous Question D(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 17 SLR Notes: If compliance could not be established by other means, did state pipeline safety program staff request formal action, such as a "Show Cause Hearing" to correct pipeline safety violations? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 18 SLR Notes: Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question D(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 19 SLR Notes: Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question D(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 20 SLR Notes: Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question D(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 NA 22 SLR Notes: Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question D(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA 23 SLR Notes: DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 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.) Previous Question D(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 8

24 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 25 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 26 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 27 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) Info Only = No Points Info Only NA SLR Notes: 28 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only NA SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 24 Total possible points for this section: 24.5 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 9

PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question D(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question D(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question D(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: 4 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.) Previous Question D(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question D(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question D(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 NA 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: ME is only intrastate gas 60105(a). Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 10

PART D - Incident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an incident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question E.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 1 2 Are state personnel familiar with the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6 ? Appendix D) Previous Question E.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 .5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of incident notifications received? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 4 If an onsite investigation of an incident was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information by other means to determine the facts and support the decision not to go on-site? Previous Question E.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? Previous Question E.5, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations and Document Review b. Contributing Factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate SLR Notes: No reportable incidents in CY 2010 2 NA Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any incident investigation(s)? Previous Question E.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: 1 NA 7 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 annual report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) (Chapter 6) Previous Question E.7/E.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: .5 NA 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: No Reportable incidents in CY 2010 Info Only Info Only DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 11

Total points scored for this section: 3.5 Total possible points for this section: 3.5 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 12

PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives 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? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: PUC reviewed Directional Drilling Procedures: Unitil ? O&M Procedures, Appendix 2? G Maine Natural Gas ? Construction Standards Bangor Gas ? O&M Procedures, ?II.H.1.j (for use of trenchless technology by the operator) 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? New 2008 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: Dig SafePUC inspector reviews ticket number (indicating notification) at all construction inspections for work by the operator and their contractors. Random, unannounced construction site visits, by the Damage Prevention Investigators, verify marking and positive response. 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to 2 2 its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: The PUC encourages and promotes the CGA Best Practices through annual training by Maine's Managing Underground Safety Training (MUST) Committee, in which the MPUC actively participates. The CGA Best Practices are also referenced in MPUC Rule Chapter 420, Safety Standards For Natural Gas and LNG Facility Operators, regarding the qualification of pipeline locating personnel. 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? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: Damage Prevention Investigators at PUC maintain a spreadsheet of all underground facility incidents; including those resulting in no damage. The spreadsheet details the damages per 1,000 locate requests. 5 Did the state review operators' records of accidents and failures due to excavation damage to ensure causes of failure are addressed to minimize the possibility of recurrence as required by 192.617? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: All incidents (resulting in damage or not) are investigated by the ME PUC's Damage Prevention Investigators. Since Unitil experienced the greatest rate of damages, they are scrutinized very closely. Steps to minimize the possibility of recurrence are often incorporated in consent agreements associated with Notices of Probable Violations. Also, in 2010 the Pipeline Safety Staff investigated an incident of self inflicted damage incurred on a Bangor Gas facility. Through that investigation it was learned that Bangor Gas conducts root cause investigations of all incidents. 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 13

PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only Name of Operator Inspected: Unitil (NUI) Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Gary Kenny, P.E. Location of Inspection: Portland Date of Inspection: 06/13/2011 and 06/14/2011 Name of PHMSA Representative: Dino N. Rathod, P.E. SLR Notes: enhance pipeline safety. PUC reiviewed Status update of DIMP implentation and recent major pipeline incidents and discussed with Unitil for possible pro-active measures to 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Unitil Company Rep was notified and present at jobsite 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an acceptable inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Previous Question F.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: Gary used Check List and PHMSA OQ Protocol for field verification. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question F.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC inspector Gary Kenny documented his observations. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps, pyrometer, soap spray, CGI, etc.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Gary checked heaing iron for pipe fusion and contact pyrometer. 1 1 6 What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) New 2008 Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 1 Review of DIMP implementation progress status ; 2) Observe construction of new 8-inch plastic pipe to replace exist cast iron; Perform field verification of pipe fusion activity. 4) Recent major pipeline incidents- SanBruno, CA and Allentown, PA and pro-active measures LDC can consider. 7 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) New 2008, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 14

SLR Notes: 1 Review of DIMP implementation progress status ; 2) Observe construction of new 8-inch plastic pipe to replace exist cast iron; Perform field verification of pipe fusion activity. 4) Recent major pipeline incidents- SanBruno, CA and Allentown, PA and pro-active measures LDC can consider 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question F.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: 9 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) Previous Question F.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question F.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Gary expressed concern for two minor items- Fusion temp range, need forTip Card by fusor and calibration of Contact Pyromter for checking heatng iron. PUC to follow-up for resolution. 11 What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector Info Only Info Only performed) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: 1 Construction: Innstallation of new 8-inch HDPE plastic pipe. Checked fusor qualifications, Dig Safe ticket validity, pipe storage and handling. Quality of sand padding and excavation at site. Verified heating iron temp and pipe fusion temp, 2 Unitil's DIMP implementation status- progress review. 12 SLR Notes: Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only 13 Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) 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 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 15

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 F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: 1 Review of DIMP implementation progress status ; 2) Observe construction of new 8-inch plastic pipe to replace exist cast iron; Perform field verification of pipe fusion activity. 4) Recent major pipeline incidents- SanBruno, CA and Allentown, PA and pro-active measures LDC can consider. 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 1 Review of DIMP implementation progress status ; 2) Observe construction of new 8-inch plastic pipe to replace exist cast iron; Perform field verification of pipe fusion activity. 4) Recent major pipeline incidents- SanBruno, CA and Allentown, PA and pro-active measures LDC can consider Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 16

PART G - PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan Points(MAX) Score Risk base Inspections - Targeting High Risk Areas 1 Does state have process to identify high risk inspection units? Yes = 1.5 No = 0 Risk Factors (criteria) to consider may include: Miles of HCA's, Geographic area, Population Density Length of time since last inspection History of Individual Operator units (leakage, incident and compliance history, etc.) Threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Other Outside Forces, Material or Welds, Equipment, Operations, Other) SLR Notes: PUC has Gas Safety Program Procedures which are revised annually. The most recent revision was reviewed June 3, 2011 1.5 1.5 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: The inspection units for the natural gas LDCs, Intrastate transmission, and LNG are straightforward. .5 0.5 3 Consideration of operators DIMP Plan? (if available and pending rulemaking) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: PUC has monitored progress of DIMP implementation.PUC verification that operators have DIMP Plans in place will begin in early August. Since the December 2009 notice in the Federal Register, information has been forwarded to the natural gas and LPG operators. On March 23, 2011 the Gas Safety Manager attended a presentation of the DIMP Plan by the state's largest gas utility, Unitil. It appears their plan is very thorough 4 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: July 22, 2010 incident of self damage to a main by Bangor Gas (BG). Although the incident was minor, the initial report indicated a cause that didn't seem plausible. PUC's ensuing investigation indicated the report was false. Subsequently, all matters pertaining to operator qualification and records are being very closely scrutinized with BG. PUC'sprevious Gas Safety Program Procedures included a schedule of inspecting LPG facilities every three years. With two new intrastate transmission lines proposed (one by a proposed LDC), Unitil's cast iron replacement program, and the general growth of natural gas due to favorable pricing, that schedule has been revised to once every five years. Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 5 Does state use data to analyze effectiveness of damage prevention efforts in the state? (DIRT or other data, etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC's Damage Prevention Investigators maintain a spreadsheet titled "Incident Activity" that tracks all incidents, including those where there was no damage. Also, the 2010 Damage Prevention Grant from PHMSA was utilized to develop a new damage prevention database and procure handheld data collection units. The new database is currently in the implementation phase. 6 Has state reviewed data on Operator Annual reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Yes. Unitil purchased Northern Utilities in 2008. Review of subsequent annual reports by PUC indicated some discrepancies regarding miles of main by type, services by type, and the total of services. These discrepancies have been attributable to Unitil's diligence to verify records through field verification. 7 Has state analyzed annual report data for trends and operator issues? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: 8 Has state reviewed data on Incident/Accident reports for accuracy? DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 17

Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: 9 Does state do evaluation of effectiveness of program based on data? (i.e. performance measures, trends, etc.) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1. PUC evaluates constueciton activites and replacement considerations and took action thru Commission stipulation of cast iron and bare steel pipes in Portland area. PUC has effective Dig Safe Program and strong enforcement. PUC collects and reviews operator data and damage data and follow trends. 10 Did the State input all operator qualification inspection results into web based database provided by PHMSA in a timely manner upon completion of OQ inspections? Previous Question B.15 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC conducted OQ field verificationinspection and entered in OQBD. .5 0.5 11 SLR Notes: . Did the State submit their replies into the Integrity Management Database (IMDB) in response to the Operators notifications for their integrity management program? Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 NA 12 Have the IMP Federal Protocol forms been uploaded to the IMDB? Previous Question B.17 .5 NA Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: NO IMP inspections were conducted in CY 2010. Gary has recently completed IMP WBT training and wait-listed for IMP training course for JAn 2012. PUC plans to conduct IMP reviews upon successful completion of IMP trainingby GAru Kenny 13 SLR Notes: Yes 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? Previous Question B.18 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 14 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) database along with any changes made after original submission? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: NPMS Public Viewer has been utilized to verify that both transmission operators, Bangor Gas and Maine Natural Gas, have their lines on the system. Neither line has been modified since its installation Accident/Incident Investigation Learning and Sharing Lessons Learned 15 Has state shared lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (i.e. NAPSR meetings and communications) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC regularly disseminates incident/accident information which it receives from NAPSR and PHMSA to natural gas and LPG operators. .5 0.5 16 Does the State support data gathering efforts concerning accidents? (Frequency/Consequence/etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes; PUC Rule Chapter 420 requires participation in the Plastic Pipe Data Collection and Sharing Initiative DUNS: 002235294 2010 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 18

17 SLR Notes: Does state have incident/accident criteria for conducting root cause analysis? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only 18 SLR Notes: Does state conduct root cause analysis on incidents/accidents in state? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only 19 Has state participated on root cause analysis training? (can also be on wait list) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Gas Safety Manager Gary Kenny attended PHMSA's Root Cause/Incident Course (PHMSA?PL3600) in September 2010 .5 0.5 Transparency - Communication with Stakeholders 20 Other than pipeline safety seminar does State communicate with stakeholders? (Communicate program data, .5 0.5 pub awareness, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: The documents pertaining to all docketed cases are available on?line through the MPUC's Virtual Case File which may be found at the following link: http://mpuc.informe.org/easyfile/easyweb.php?func=easyweb_splashpage 21 Does state share enforcement data with public? (Website, newsletters, docket access, etc.) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: PUC documents pertaining to all docketed cases are available on?line through the MPUC's Virtual Case File which may be found at 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 47000