2013 ME NG Program Evaluation - me2013ngprogramevaluation (Maine; Natural Gas State Program Evaluation)

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation for MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES 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: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 1#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 22013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation -- CY 2013 Natural Gas State Agency: Maine Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 05/19/2014 - 05/23/2014 Agency Representative: Gary Kenny, PE Gas Safety Manager PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Transportation Specialist Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Thomas L. Welch, Chairman Agency: Maine Public Utilities Commission Address: 18 State House Station City/State/Zip: Augusta, Maine 04333-0018 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 2013 (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 9 9 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C Program Performance 45 38 D Compliance Activities 15 10 E Incident Investigations 4 4 F Damage Prevention 8 8 G Field Inspections 12 12 H Interstate Agent State (If Applicable) 0 0 I 60106 Agreement State (If Applicable) 0 0 TOTALS 108 96 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 88.9 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 2#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 (A1a) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes - No Issues. ME only has 4 jurisdictional LDCs and 4 jurisdictional TL operators of which 3 are operated by the LDCs. 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 (A1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues. Was given and reviewed spreadsheet of inspection days. 1 1 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State - Progress Report Attachment 3 (A1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: No issues. 1 1 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 incidents in 2013. 1 NA 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: All inspection reports were readily available for review. No issues. 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: Yes. Verified through TQ SABA. 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. ME PUC rules automatically adopt safety requlations. 1 1 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 1 1 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 3#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 4Evaluator Notes: No issues. 10 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 4#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspections (B1a) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Standard Comprehensive (O&M w/records) have an inspection frequency of every 3 years. 2 2 2 IMP Inspections (including DIMP) (B1b) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes. DIMP/IMP have an inspection frequency of every 3 years. 3 OQ Inspections (B1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 Yes. OQ has an inspection frequency of being conducted annually, usually inconjunction with construction inspections. 4 Damage Prevention Inspections (B1d) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Conducted by the ME PUC Damage Prevention section. In 2013 inspections resulted in $50,000 fines. 5 On-Site Operator Training (B1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: seminars. 1 1 Yes. This is listed as part of the NAPSR and NEPSR Safety Training Seminars. Staff participate as speakers at these 6 Construction Inspections (B1f) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Design, testing and construction are listed as types of inspections conducted by safety staff. 1 1 7 Incident/Accident Investigations (B1g) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Appendix E os the Gas Safety Program procedures address Accident Investigation Procedures. 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: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 5#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 6f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: Yes. The process for developing the inspection plan is located in Appendix C. Section A of Appendix C provides the background and foundation of the inspection program. Section B of the Appendix discusses both planned and risk-based inspections. Gas Safety Program procedures address 22 risk factors in determining inspection priorities. 9 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 6#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, 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): 187.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.97 = 433.03 Ratio: A / B 187.00 / 433.03 = 0.43 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: Yes. The ratio of .43 is greater than the .38 needed. 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: No issues. Yes, Jim Atkins (left 10/31/13) and Gary Kenny have both completed the mandatory training requirements Gas Inspectors and many electives. Their transcripts area attached. Gary Kenny, Jim Atkins, and Nathan Dore completed the WBT for OQ and Gary Kenny had the T&Q OQ Course in April 2014. Gary Kenny and Jim Atkins have completed the DIMP course. LPG DIMP inspections are currently being conducted by Nathan Dore with Gary Kenny reviewing all results. 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: No issues. 2 2 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 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Letters sent to Chair of ME PUC on September 3, 2013 and response letter was sent October 28, 2013. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 (A3) Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Maine participates with the other New England states, as the New England Pipeline Safety Representatives (NEPSR), DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 7#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 8to hold annual Pipeline Safety Seminars with TQ. In October 2010, the seminar was actually hosted in Maine and the most recent seminar was held in Vermont in October 2013. 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time 5 0 intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 (B3) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 Evaluator Notes: No. There was no O&M inspections for Bangor Gas within the past 3 years and there were no completed records inspection for Unitil Gas in 2013. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 0 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: No. Not all applicable parts of the code are addressed on the LP inspection form. All other inspections use the federal inspection form. 8 Did the state review operator procedures for determining if exposed cast iron pipe was 1 1 examined for evidence of graphitization and if necessary remedial action was taken? (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, only one operator in Maine, Northern Utilities, has cast iron pipe in their system. Section 6.3.3 of their O& M Procedure states the following: (a) General Graphitization: Each segment of cast iron pipe or ductile iron pipe on which general graphitization (i.e., graphitic corrosion) is found to a degree where a fracture or leakage might result, or where these events have occurred, shall be replaced or repaired. (b) Localized Graphitization: Each segment of cast iron pipe or ductile iron pipe on which localized graphitization (i.e., graphitic corrosion) is found to a degree where leakage might result, shall be replaced, or repaired, or sealed by internal sealing to prevent or arrest leakage. 9 Did the state review operator procedures for surveillance of cast iron pipelines, including 1 1 appropriate action resulting from tracking circumferential cracking failures, study of leakage history, or other unusual operating maintenance condition? (Note: See GPTC Appendix G-18 for guidance) (NTSB) Chapter 5.1 (B8) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, Northern Utilities has a cast iron and bare steel model used for the ranking of pipe and the priority of its replacement. The ranking is completed annually and filed with the MPUC. 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: Yes. ME PUC uses federsl form to acheive this. 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, MPUC Rule Chapter 420 ?E.3 requires that operators provide monthly reports to the MPUC of the response times to DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 8#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 9emergency calls. Any responses exceeding 60 minutes, without an adequate explanation, are investigated. The MPUC Damage Prevention Investigators (DPIs) investigate all damage prevention incidents whether or not there are any facility damages. The DPIs discuss natural gas and LPG related incidents with the Program Manager and/or Inspector. When warranted, incidents are also investigated to see if pipeline safety violations were involved. 12 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for 2 2 accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Data Initiative (G6-9,G16) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the annual reports are reviewed for trends regarding cast iron and unprotected steel pipe (only one operator has them), mains and services, leaks, damages, and unaccounted for gas. There were no incidents or accidents in 2013 which required reporting under Part 191. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely 2 2 manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 (G10-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Summit Gas, a distribution system, was listed on the PHMSA webpage for OQ. There were no TL IMP inspections in 2013. 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 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, MPUC staff has followed up with Woodland for the addition of their lateral and has followed up with Summit for their NPMS submission and the obtaining of an Operator ID. Reviewed NPMS during evaluation. No issues. 15 Is the state verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests as required by 2 2 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: Drug and Alcohol inspections, utilizing PHMSA Form 13, were conducted on all four Natural Gas Distribution Operators in 2013. 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: Yes, MPUC Rule Chapter 420, ?7.C.1.d requires that natural gas operators submit their OQ plans to the MPUC annually. The qualification of the operator's and contractor's personnel is verified each time tasks are observed during inspections. If the records are not available at the time of the inspection, they are either requested from the operator or obtained from the appropriate database. DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 9#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 1017 Is state verifying operator's gas transmission integrity management programs (IMP) are 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: 2 2 Bangor Gas' Plan has been verified to be up to date. Direct assessments are scheduled for 2014. Summit is a new operator. 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 DIMP ? First round of program inspections should be complete by December 2014 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The DIMP Inspections of all LDCs are complete with the exception of Summit, who began operation in 2014. That will be conducted in 2014. LPG Operator's DIMP inspections will be conducted in 2014. 19 Is state verifying operators Public Awareness programs are up to date and being followed. State should also verify operators have evaluated Public Awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162. 49 CFR 192.616 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be complete by December 2013 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the following are the completion dates of the Public Awareness Inspections: Unitil ? 2012 Maine Natural Gas ? 2013 Bangor Gas - 2013 Woodland ? Initial communications were reviewed in 2012. 20 Does the state have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders - other than state 1 1 pipeline safety seminar? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). (G20-21) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the following methods of communication are utilized: ? Dissemination of Federal Register notices and other pertinent information to operators via E-mail. Four such notices were sent to LPG operators in 2013 and 8 were sent to natural gas operators. ? Periodic meetings are held with LPG operators for general discussion and/or specific topics such as DIMP. Two such meetings were held for DIMP on 2/7/13 and 2/21/13. ? Speaking at annual Propane Summit of the Maine Energy Marketers Association. The most recent was November 20, 2013. 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: There were no safety related condition reports during CY 2013. 1 NA DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 10#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 1122 Did the State ask Operators to identify any plastic pipe and components that has shown a 1 1 record of defects/leaks and what those operators are doing to mitigate the safety concerns? (G13) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, MPUC Rule Chapter 420, ?7.A. states; "Each natural gas utility shall participate in the Plastic Pipe Data Collection and Sharing Initiative and report each discovered incident of plastic pipe failure as prescribed in the Initiative to The Maine Public Utilities Commission Gas Safety Manager, and The American Gas Association Plastic Pipe Ad Hoc Committee". 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: Yes. 1 1 24 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 25 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 38 Total possible points for this section: 45 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 11#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 12PART D - Compliance Activities Points(MAX) Score 1 Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to 4 4 resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 (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: Appendix D - Enforcement Procedures - #2 Formal Actions (a) state Notices of Amendment are issued from the Program Manager on Commission letterhead via certified mail to an operator company officer. Enforcement Procedures are detailed in ?8 of MPUC Rule Chapter 420 and in ?6 of MPUC Rule Chapter 421. The MPUC has implemented a compliance tracking spreadsheet. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 1 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 b. Were probable violations documented? Yes No Needs Improvement c. Were probable violations resolved? Yes No Needs Improvement d. Was the progress of probable violations routinely reviewed? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: The Maine Natural Gas inspection conducted by Jim Atkins on September 11, 12 and 13, 2013 noted a non-compliance (unsatisfactory on form) with Part 192.491(c) and 192.465(d). This non-compliance was not addressed in the letter sent to Mr. Michael Eastman,VP Gas Operations on May 15, 2014. The inspection report for Champagne's Energy on 2/26/2011 (an LP operator on a 5 year inspection cycle) noted several non- compliances. There was no documentation found notifying the operator of such violations. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (B15) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 0 Evaluator Notes: The Maine Natural Gas inspection conducted by Jim Atkins on September 11, 12 and 13, 2013 noted a non-compliance (unsatisfactory on form) with Part 192.491(c) and 192.465(d). This non-compliance was not addressed in the letter sent to Mr. Michael Eastman,VP Gas Operations on May 15, 2014. The inspection report for Champagne's Energy on 2/26/2011 (an LP operator on a 5 year inspection cycle) noted several non- compliances. There was no documentation found notifying the operator of such violations. Other letters noted probable violations. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show 2 2 cause" hearing if necessary. (B17, B20) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes. Again referencing ?8 of MPUC Rule Chapter 420 and in ?6 of MPUC Rule Chapter 421. This includes the possibility for the informal disposition of a Probable Violation, show cause orders, hearings. 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: DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 12#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 13Yes, an example is MPUC Docket Number 2013-00178 which included penalties totaling $50,000 and the requirement that the operator submit a written plan specifying actions that the Company will take to correct the violation, a schedule of completion of each action step, and a final date of compliance. 6 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for pipeline safety 1 1 violations? Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, NOPVs with penalties totaling $76,000 were issued in 2013. 7 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: 15 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 13#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 14PART 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: Yes. Operators have staff contact information for after-hours notification. 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 No incidents in 2013, but information can be obtain should incident occur to determin if site visit is necessary. 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: None in 2013. 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: 1 NA 6 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: 1 1 at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) (G15) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: Yes, although there have been no accidents or incidents (reportable under Part 191) the Program Manager actively participates in NAPSR and the annual NEPSR pipeline safety seminars with T&Q. Information is also sent to operators by e- mail. 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 14#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 15Total points scored for this section: 4 Total possible points for this section: 4 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 15#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 16PART 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: Yes, the MPUC actively inspects this and addresses it in Rule Chapter 420. 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: Looked at through the Damage Prevention section of the ME PUC. 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: Yes. 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: Damage Prevention section keeps statistics. Reviews statistics. 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: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 16#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Maine Natural Gas Dead River (LP) Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Gary Kenny Nathan Dore Location of Inspection: Topsham Augusta Date of Inspection: May 19, 2014 May 21, 2014 Name of PHMSA Representative: Jim Anderson Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only 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: Yes 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: Yes. 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 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: 2 2 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) (F8) DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation 2 2 Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 17#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 18Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Gary - yes. Nathan - relatively new, but very knowledgeable. 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: Yes. 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: Yes. Notified operator of signs did not meet 192.707 criteria. 1 1 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 F. Welding Info Only Info Only DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 18#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 19G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 19#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 20PART 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 1 NA Evaluator Notes: 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: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 20#

ME NG Program Evaluation, 2013, page 21PART 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: 002235294 2013 Natural Gas State Program Evaluation Maine MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Page: 21#