Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA tx-2020-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
2020 TX HL Program Evaluation - tx-2020-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation (Texas; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA tx-2020-hazardous-liquid-program-evaluation
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS Document Legend PART: O -- Representative, Dates and Title Information A -- Progress Report and Program Documentation Review B -- Program Inspection Procedures C -- State Qualifications D -- Program Performance E -- Field Inspections F -- Damage prevention and Annual report analysis G -- Interstate Agent/Agreement States DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 1#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 22020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Texas Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 10/04/2021 - 10/28/2021 Agency Representative: Stephanie Weidman, Carrie Ebbinghaus, Kendall Smith PHMSA Representative: Michael Thompson, David Lykken, Clint Stephens Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Wayne Christian, Chairman Agency: Railroad Commission of Texas Address: 1701 N. Congress City/State/Zip: Austin, Texas 78701 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Evaluator Guidance for conducting state pipeline safety program evaluations. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2020 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). A deficiency in any one part of a multiple-part question should be scored as “Needs Improvement.” Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less than the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the appropriate notes/comments section. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and they OBJECTIVELY reflect the state's program performance for the question being evaluated. Increasing emphasis is being placed on how the state pipeline safety programs conduct and execute their pipeline safety responsibilities (their performance). This evaluation, together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments, provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 0 0 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C State Qualifications 10 10 D Program Performance 50 43 E Field Inspections 15 15 F Damage prevention and Annual report analysis 6 6 G Interstate Agent/Agreement States 0 0 TOTALS 96 89 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 92.7 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 2#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 3PART A - Progress Report and Program Documentation Review Points(MAX) Score 1 Were the following Progress Report Items accurate? (*items not scored on progress Info Only Info Only report) Info Only = No Points a. Stats On Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 1 b. State Inspection Activity Data - Progress Report Attachment 2 c. List of Operators Data - Progress Report Attachment 3* d. Incidents/Accidents Data - Progress Report Attachment 4* e. Stats of Compliance Actions Data - Progress Report Attachment 5* f. List of Records Kept Data - Progress Report Attachment 6 * g. Staff and TQ Training Data - Progress Report Attachment 7 h. Compliance with Federal Regulations Data - Progress Report Attachment 8 i. Performance and Damage Prevention Question Data - Progress Report Attachment 10* Evaluator Notes: a. Number of operators does not correspond to Annual Reports submitted to PHMSA. Need to verify operators submit annual reports and assure PHMSA operators with annual reports are in the RRC operator list. b. Reviewed TX RRC person days data provided and data seems to be accurate. There was an issue with the program not adding certain days but seems to have been corrected. c. Number of operators does not correspond to Annual Reports submitted to PHMSA. Need to verify operators submit annual reports and assure PHMSA operators with annual reports are in the RRC operator list. d. Verified reportable incidents in PDM with Attachment 4. There were no issues identified. e. Verified compliance actions submitted on Attachment 5. f. TX RRC keeps all records electronically in their PES database. g. Reviewed qualifications and verified with Blackboard. No issues identified. The RRC is on a 3 year waiver due to growth on the Category Qualification levels. Currently they are below the PHMSA required category level. Will need to qualify inspectors in the near future to avoid future point deductions. h. TX RRC has adopted all the regulations within the 2 year requirement. i. TX RRC listed their planned and past performance activities and damage prevention initiatives. Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 3#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 4PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Do written procedures address pre-inspection, inspection and post inspection activities 5 5 for each of the following inspection types: Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard Inspections, which include Drug/Alcohol, CRM and Public Awareness Effectiveness Inspections b. IMP Inspections c. OQ Inspections d. Damage Prevention Inspections e. On-Site Operator Training f. Construction Inspections (annual efforts) Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section 3 addresses pre and post inspection activities for each type of inspection. A.Yes, Section 3 has comprehensive inspection procedures which give guidance to inspectors on conducting comprehensive procedures. B. Yes Section 6.1 and 6.2 has IMP and DIMP inspection procedures which give guidance to inspectors on how to conduct inspections. The procedures include pre and post inspection activities. C. Yes Section 6.3 has OQ inspection procedures which give guidance to insepctors on how to conduct inspections. The procedures include pre and post inspection activities. D. Yes Section 6.7 has Damage Prevention inspection procedures which give guidance to inspectors on how to conduct inspections. The procedures include pre and post inspection activities. E. Section 5 has On-Site Training procedures which includes documentation of training on PES. F. Section 6.6 which gives guidance to inspectors on how to conduct construction inspections. 2 Do written procedures address inspection priorities of each operator, and if necessary 4 4 each unit, based on the following elements and time frames established in its procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-3 a. Length of time since last inspection b. Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident and compliance activities) c. Type of activity being undertaken by operators (i.e. construction) d. Locations of operator's inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Centers, etc.) e. Process to identify high-risk inspection units that includes all threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Outside Forces, Material and Welds, Equipment, Operators and any Other Factors) f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section 3 has a risk based inspection priority. PES generates an inspection schedule each calendar year based on risk factors for each system. The risk factors include; previous violations, customer count, leaks, type of pipe, inspection frequency, incidents, HCAs, class location and UN-evaluated systems. Inspection units appear to be broken down appropriately. 3 (Compliance Procedures) Does the state have written procedures to identify steps to be 3 3 taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified b. Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns c. Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations Evaluator Notes: Yes, Section 3.6, 4 and 11 has procedure to notify operator of alleged violations. Section 3.2.2 states contact must be an officer of the company, and in Section 3.4 it states that the RRC sends a executive closing summary to the operator. DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 4#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 54 (Incident/Accident Investigations) Does the state have written procedures to address state actions in the event of an incident/accident? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Mechanism to receive, record, and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports b. If onsite investigation was not made, do procedures require on-call staff to obtain sufficient information to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on-site. 3 3 Evaluator Notes: Yes, A.Section 7 has On-Call procedures included after hours response. Inspectors rotate on call duties. During operating hours, the Accident Coordinator receives calls and routes them to the on-call inspector. B. Section 7.2.3 has requirements for on-site investigation. Procedure states that all incidents that meet their requirements must have an on-site investigation on regulated intrastate and non-regulated intrastate pipelines. 5 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: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 5#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 6PART C - State Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 1 Has each inspector and program manager fulfilled training requirements? (See Guidelines 5 5 Appendix C for requirements) Chapter 4.4 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Completion of Required OQ Training before conducting inspection as lead b. Completion of Required IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/program manager d. Note any outside training completed e. Verify inspector has obtained minimum qualifications to lead any applicable standard inspection as the lead inspector (Reference State Guidelines Section 4.3.1) Evaluator Notes: A. Yes lead inspectors are qualified to conduct inspections. The Program Manager has procedure to allow inspectors be qualified to conduct comprehensive inspections without completing the required T&Q courses. B. Yes, verified all lead inspectors are qualified to lead IMP inspections. C. Yes, there are RRC inspectors who have completed the Root Cause training course. D. RRC inspectors attend outside training. E.Verified during records review that all inspectors are qualified before leading any type of inspection. 2 Did state records and discussions with state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the Program Manager has been with the RRC for a few years and has completed the required T&Q courses. She demonstrates knowledge of the PHMSA program and regulations. 3 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 6#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 7PART D - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time 5 0 intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Construction (did state achieve 20% of total inspection person-days?) f. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) g. IMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) Evaluator Notes: Reviewed inspection reports and found that all types of inspections are not being completed within the required 5 year inspection cycle. 2 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? Chapter 5.1. Do inspection records indicate that adequate reviews of procedures, records and field activities, including notes and the appropriate level of inspection person-days for each inspection, were performed? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Standard (General Code Compliance) b. Public Awareness Effectiveness Reviews c. Drug and Alcohol d. Control Room Management e. Construction f. OQ (see Question 3 for additional requirements) g. IMP (see Question 4 for additional requirements) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the TX RRC utilitizes a PHMSA equivalent form for all of their inspections that cover all the applicable code sections. Reviewed inspection reports to verify that inspectors are completing all applicable portions of the inspection. There were no issues identified. 3 Is state verifying monitoring (Protocol 9/Form15) of operators OQ programs? This 2 1 should include verification of any plan updates and that persons performing covered tasks (including contractors) are properly qualified and requalified at intervals established in the operator's plan. 49 CFR 192 Part N Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: The RRC is not reviewing all operator OQ Programs to verify plans are meeting the regulations. Reviewed inspection reports and there are operators who have not had an OQ Plan inspection. 4 Is state verifying operator's integrity management Programs (IMP)? This should include a 2 1 review of plans, along with monitoring progress. In addition, the review should take in to account program review and updates of operator's plan(s). 49 CFR 192 Subpart P Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Are the state's largest operator(s) plans being reviewed annually to ensure they are completing the full cycle of the DIMP/IMP process? Evaluator Notes: The RRC is not reviewing all operator IMP to verify programs are meeting the regulations. Discussed with RRC that IMP programs on larger operators have to be reviewed annually for any changes or updates. In addition, it was discussed the need to conduct field verification inspections while operators are conducting assessments. DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 7#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 85 Did the state review the following (these items are NTSB recommendations to PHMSA that have been deemed acceptable response based on PHMSA reviewing these items during the evaluation process): Chapter 5.1 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third- party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 195.402; and b. 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; Evaluator Notes: Yes, the TX RRC PES form has incorporated the NTSB recommendations and ADB questions. 2 2 6 Did the State verify Operators took appropriate action regarding advisory bulletins issued since the last evaluation? (Advisory Bulletins Current Year) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, the TX RRC PES form has incorporated the NTSB recommendations and ADB questions. 1 1 7 (Compliance Activities) Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system? b. Were probable violations documented properly? c. Resolve probable violations d. Routinely review progress of probable violations e. Did state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? f. Can state demonstrate fining authority for pipeline safety violations? g. Does Program Manager review, approve and monitor all compliance actions? (note: Program Manager or Senior Official should sign any NOPV or related enforcement action) h. Did state compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing, if necessary. i. Within 30 days, conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator outlining any concerns j. Within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection. (Incident investigations do not need to meet 30/90-day requirement) 10 10 Evaluator Notes: The TXRRC has made improvements in this area by setting in place procedures and assigning responsibilities to inspectors. However, in reviewing records it was noted that there are some cases that have taken extended time to resolve due to the Covid 19 effect on business, especially on small operators. The state appears to be issuing compliance actions, they are demonstrating fining authority and due process is no issue. 8 (Accident Investigations) Were all federally reportable incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, with conclusions and recommendations? Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? 10 10 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 8#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 9f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? Evaluator Notes: a. Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? b. Did state keep adequate records of Incident/Accident notifications received? c. If onsite investigation was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by means to determine the facts to support the decision not to go on site? d. Were onsite observations documented? e. Were contributing factors documented? f. Were recommendations to prevent recurrences, where appropriate, documented? g. Did state initiate compliance action for any violations found during any incident/accident investigation? h. Did state assist Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? i. Does state share any lessons learned from incidents/accidents? 9 Did state respond to Chairman's letter on previous evaluation within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? (If necessary) Chapter 8.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, letter sent on 10/29/2020, state response received 12/2/2020 1 1 10 Did State conduct or participate in pipeline safety training session or seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, the state holds annual seminars for operators. Info Only Info Only 11 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, the inspection form addresses the NPMS database changes question. Info Only Info Only 12 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). Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Yes, website has pipeline safety section which provides information to stakeholders. 1 1 13 Did state execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed SRCR in WMS and the TXRRC is responding to notifications. All SRCR were reviewed by the TXRRC. 14 Was the State responsive to: Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 a. Surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA; and DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 9#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 10b. PHMSA Work Management system tasks? Evaluator Notes: Yes, Verified the TXRRC responded to surveys by NAPSR and PHMSA> 15 If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the state verified 1 1 conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: Reviewed waivers and recommended that the TXRRC contact Jenny Donohue with PHMSA to remove any the are no longer relevant. 16 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Yes, the program's files are well organized. However, it is still hard to track inspections on pipelines that have had a change of ownership. 17 Discussion with State on accuracy of inspection day information submitted into State Inspection Day Calculation Tool (SICT). Has the state updated SICT data? Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 Evaluator Notes: 3003 on SICT 3585 Completed 3 3 18 Discussion on State Program Performance Metrics found on Stakeholder Communication site.\ http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/states.htm?nocache=4805 Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Discussed performance metrics with the TXRRC Program Manager. Info Only Info Only 19 Did the state encourage and promote operator implementation of Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), or API RP 1173? This holistic approach to improving pipeline safety includes the identification, prevention and remediation of safety hazards. Info Only = No Points a. https://pipelinesms.org/ b. Reference AGA recommendation to members May 20, 2019 Evaluator Notes: The TXRRC discussed the need to use PSMS with operators during their safety seminar. Info Only Info Only 20 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: D1. Reviewed inspection reports and found that all types of inspections are not being completed within the required 5 year inspection cycle. A loss of 5 points D3. The RRC is not reviewing all operator OQ Programs to verify plans are meeting the regulations. Reviewed inspection reports and there are operators who have not had an OQ Plan inspection. A loss of 1 point D4. The RRC is not reviewing all operator IMP to verify programs are meeting the regulations. Discussed with RRC that IMP programs on larger operators have to be reviewed annually for any changes or updates. In addition, it was discussed the need to conduct field verification inspections while operators are conducting assessments. A loss of 1 point DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 10#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 11Total points scored for this section: 43 Total possible points for this section: 50 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 11#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 12PART E - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative (enter specifics into the comments box below) Info Only = No Points a. What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) b. When was the unit inspected last? c. Was pipeline operator or representative present during inspection? d. Effort should be made to observe newest state inspector with least experience Evaluator Notes: 1. Raven Butene LLC Jennifer Delacruz- TX RRC Inspector William Dean- TX RRC Inspector Virtual Inspection (due to pandemic) March 15-18, 2021 Agustin Lopez- State Evaluator Info Only Info Only Ms Jennier Dalacruz and Mr. William Dean conducted an IMP inspection of Raven Butene LLC. This was the first IMP inspection of this operator due to the pipelines being recently constructed. Raven Butene LLC representative were present during the inspection. 2. Plains Pipeline, opid 300; Michael Valdez, Michael.Valdez@rrc.texas.gov 512-971-3058, Virtual ? WebEx and Facetime, Iraan to McCamey 16'' line, about 80 miles south of Midland with office and Control Room in Midland; TX, 16"x22.87 miles long, x52pipe, no HCA on this line, no breakout tanks; May 17-20, 2021; Patrick Gaume. 2 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: 1. Yes the TX RRC utilized the IMP Protocol/Form to use as a guide and to document the inspection. 2. Yes, TX RRC Standard Inspection form and the TX RRC D&A Field Inspection Form, both as found in PES. The OQ and IMP questions were imbedded within the Standard Inspection form. 3 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the inspection 10 10 Yes = 10 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-9 a. Procedures (were the inspector's questions of the operator adequate to determine compliance?) b. Records (did the inspector adequately review trends and ask in-depth questions?) c. Field Activities/Facilities (did inspector ensure that procedures were being followed, including ensuring that properly calibrated equipment was used and OQ's were acceptable?) d. Other (please comment) e. Was the inspection of adequate length to properly perform the inspection? Evaluator Notes: 1. The IMP Plan was reviewed along with records to verify the IMP plan is being implemented by the operator. There was no field portion performed during the inspection. The inspection was adequate in length to thoroughly review the IMP Plan and records. 2. Yes, for a, b, c, d, & e. Inspection spanned 4 days. 4 From your observation did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) 2 2 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 12#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 13Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: 1. Yes, Ms. Jennifer Delacruz and Mr. William Dean demonstrated knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations. They performed and excellent job and were very thorough. 2. Yes. Michael was courteous and professional in his behavior and was thorough with each question during the inspection. 5 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview, including identifying probable violations? (If 1 1 inspection is not totally completed the interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1. Yes, and exit interview was conducted at the conclusion of the inspection which had the following potential issues identified: (A)Regulation: 195.452(k) Violation Note: At the time of the inspection the operator was unable to provide documentation showing they had performed an effectiveness review of their Integrity Program. (B) Regulation: 195.452(i)(4) Violation Note: At the time of the Inspection the operator was unable to provide documentation of an Emergency Flow Restrictive Device (EFRD) analysis. 2. Yes. The, Exit interview addressed Procedures, Records, Field, and some OQ & D&A questions. All was found to be in good order. No violations. 6 Was inspection performed in a safe, positive, and constructive manner ? Info Only = No Points a. No unsafe acts should be performed during inspection by the state inspector b. What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) c. Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) d. Other Info Only Info Only Evaluator Notes: 1. Yes the inspection was conducted in a safe, positive and constructive manner. 2. Yes for a, b, c, & d. A.-PPE was used and proper procedures were followed for all activities. B.-signs, markers, valve locks, fencing and site security, location conditions, air/soil interface, atmospheric corrosion, ROW conditions, fire extinguishers, CP readings, Rectifier readings, OQ for CP readings, OQ for rectifier inspection, valve actuation, OQ for valve actuation, called & verified the emergency number, Flanges and threads, detailed pig trap review, pump station at line origin, real time pressures as seen in SCADA. C.- no new best practices, just competent operations. D.- field facilities were very clean and well maintained. 7 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: 1. Both inspectors, Ms. Jennifer Delacruz and Mr. William Dean are very knowledgeable of the pipeline safety rules and regulations. They conducted thorough and constructive IMP inspection. 2. Part E scored 15 of 15 points. Mr. Michael Valdez showed professional competence and courtesy while conducting the inspection. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 13#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 14PART F - Damage prevention and Annual report analysis Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues. Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: The RRC reviews annual and incident reports to complete the yearly risk assessment for their work plan. The RRC needs to assure all operators submit annual reports in order to thoroughly and completed analyze the entire data for trends and issues. 2 Has the state verified that the operators analyze excavation damages for the purpose of 2 2 determining root causes and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence? (192.617) Has the state verified that the operators have appropriately identified excavators who have repeatedly violated one-call laws and damaged their facilities. Have the operators taken steps to mitigate that risks? (192.1007) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: Discussed with the RRC to assure that Part D of the annual reports are reviewed and analyzed for any issues. The RRC provided feedback to PHMSA on current issues related to excavation damages reported on certain operators. 3 Has the state reviewed the operator's annual report pertaining to Part D - Excavation Info Only Info Only Damage? Info Only = No Points a. Is the information complete and accurate with root cause numbers? b. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "One-Call Notification Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.a.)? c. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Locating Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.b)? For each operator, does the state review the following? d. Is the operator or its locating contractor(s) qualified and following written procedures for locating and marking facilities? e. Is the operator appropriately requalifying locators to address performance deficiencies? f. What is the number of damages resulting from mismarks? g. What is the number of damages resulting from not locating within time requirements (no-shows)? h. Is the operator appropriately addressing discovered mapping errors resulting in excavation damages? i. Are mapping corrections timely and according to written procedures? j. Has the state evaluated the causes for the damages listed under "Excavation Practices Not Sufficient" (Part D.1.c.)? Evaluator Notes: The RRC has a dedicated damage prevention department who analyzes data and provides support to pipeline safety related to excavation damages. Discussed with the RRC the need to review and analyze Part D data provided in Annual Reports. (for gas operators) 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. What stakeholder group is causing the highest number of damages to the pipelines? Operator, contractor, locating company or public. b. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to stakeholders causing the most damages? c. Has the state evaluated which of the following best describes the reason for the excavation damages; i.e., operator or contractor not following written procedures, failure to maintain marks, failure to support exposed facilities, failure to use hand tools were required, failure to test-hole (pot hole), improper backfilling practices, failure to maintain clearance or insufficient excavation practices. d. Has the state verified the operator is appropriately focusing damage prevention education and training to address the causes of excavation damages? DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 14#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 15Evaluator Notes: Yes their damage prevention personnel and 811 collect damage data which includes damages per 1,000 locates. The damage prevention personnel analyze data and encourage the utilization of best practices. 5 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 15#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2020, page 16PART G - Interstate Agent/Agreement States Points(MAX) Score 1 Were all inspections of interstate pipelines conducted using the Inspection Assistant program for documenting inspections? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Rail Road Commission of Texas is NOT an interstate agent Info Only Info Only 2 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was notice of all Info Only Info Only identified probable violations provided to PHMSA within 60 days? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Rail Road Commission of Texas is NOT an interstate agent 3 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection was PHMSA immediately notified of conditions which may pose an immediate safety hazard to the public or environment? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Rail Road Commission of Texas is NOT an interstate agent Info Only Info Only 4 If inspections were conducted independent of a PHMSA team inspection did the state coordinate with PHMSA if inspections not were not included in the PHMSA Inspection Work Plan? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Rail Road Commission of Texas is NOT an interstate agent Info Only Info Only 5 Did the state take direction from and cooperate with PHMSA for all incident investigations conducted on interstate pipelines? Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Rail Road Commission of Texas is NOT an interstate agent Info Only Info Only 6 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: The Rail Road Commission of Texas is NOT an interstate agent Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 028619182 2020 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 16#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.