# 2009 TX HL Program Evaluation - tx2009hlprogramevaluation (Texas; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA tx2009hlprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2009 TX HL Program Evaluation - tx2009hlprogramevaluation (Texas; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2009-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2009 PHMSA hazardous liquid program evaluation for Texas.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-tx-hl-program-evaluation-tx2009hlprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-tx-hl-program-evaluation-tx2009hlprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-tx-hl-program-evaluation-tx2009hlprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/1336/tx2009hlprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS 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 -- Accident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 1

2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Texas Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 08/23/2010 - 09/03/2010 Agency Representative: Mrs. Mary L. McDaniel, Director Safety Division PHMSA Representative: Mr. Patrick Gaume, State Liaison Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Mr. Victor G. Carrillo, Chairman Agency: Railroad Commission of Texas Address: 1701 North Congress Ave. City/State/Zip: Austin, Texas 78711 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 2009 (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 25 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 25 25 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Accident Investigations 7 7 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 10 10 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 101 100 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.0 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, 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 Hazardous Liquid and CO2 facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Hazardous Liquid facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Hazardous Liquid pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the Hazardous Liquid pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: A.1 IMPROVEMENT NEEDED 7 points; D. 5 significant accidents were not reported on Attachment #4; #20090284, NRC 917418, CITGO Products, 9/11/09; #20090223, NRC 911693, EXXONMOBIL Pipeline, 7/15/09; #20090125, NRC 904087, TE Products Pipeline, 4/28/09; #20090106, NRC none, Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, 3/24/09; #20090022, NRC none, Enterprise Products, 1/17/09. All other information appeared to be correct. 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 (accident criteria as referenced in 195.50? - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports) (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: A.2. RRC meets the Federal reporting requirements. However with the new online damage reporting system, all damages to pipelines are reported regardless of value. Therefore the $5000 requirement was raised to match the Fed $50K requirement for telephonics effective March 2009. 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety T & Q seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar 2 2 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.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.3. Yes, in June 2006, October 2007, with Louisiana in July, 2008, with Louisiana in July 2009, in Corpus Christi in June, 2010, & with LA & MS in July, 2010. The new practice is to request a seminar every year. 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.4. Yes, the paper files are in the Safety Division area. 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.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvment = 1 SLR Notes: A.5. Yes, The Program Manager & the records review show a professional knowledge of the regulations. 2 2 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.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.6. Yes - A response to the Chairman letter was not required last year. 1 1 7 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 3

SLR Notes: A.7. Yes - RRC is continuing to improve its data base quality assurance such that reports will be more correct. Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year T&Q training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding T&Q courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all T&Q 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.11 Yes = 3 No = 0 3 3 SLR Notes: are scheduled for the rest. A.8. Yes, all inspectors with 3+ years of service have attended all T&Q core courses or are on the waiting list, and the new inspectors are taking courses and 9 Brief Description of Non-T&Q training Activities Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only For State Personnel: A.9. State- all Inspectors are HAZWOPER certified and defensive driving trained. About half of the inspectors are H2S certified. In 2008 all employees attended the Anger Management and conflict in the Workplace 2 day seminar. All also attended a 1 day media training. In 2009, all hands took or renewed their HAZWOPER, and received instruction in using the new 'PEZ' database. In 2010 an All Hands meeting will focus in accident investigation and DIMP. For Operators: Operators ? training in PS 95 reporting of leak repairs (state requirement & state database) and damage prevention program. For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: Non-operator/public - the public was invited to the Damage prevention enforcement sessions. SLR Notes: A.9. State- all Inspectors are HAZWOPER certified and defensive driving trained. About half of the inspectors are H2S certified. In 2008 all employees attended the Anger Management and conflict in the Workplace 2 day seminar. All also attended a 1 day media training. In 2009, all hands took or renewed their HAZWOPER, and received instruction in using the new 'PEZ' database. In 2010 an All Hands meeting will focus in accident investigation and DIMP. Operators ? training in PS 95 reporting of leak repairs (state requirement & state database) and damage prevention program. Non-operator/public - the public was invited to the Damage prevention enforcement sessions. 10 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.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.10. Yes. Russell Pesek (TSI 299 12/03) is the OQ Lead. All inspectors with 3+ years are OQ certified. 1 1 11 Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: are completed). A.11. Yes. IMP Leads are Rickenson Daniel (TSI 297 6/05, TSI 294 9/07, CBT are completed); and Randy Vaughn (T&Q 297 8/01, T&Q 294 4/09, CBT 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.14 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 484.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 3.55 = 781.00 Ratio: A / B 484.00 / 781.00 = 0.62 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 5 5 SLR Notes: DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 4

A.12. Yes. A=596 person days. B=3.55 man years * 220 = 781 person days. A/B= .7631. .7631>.38, okay. 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: A.13. Yes, In 2007 had 25 positions (Gas & Haz Liquid), with about 20 people for 2007. In 2008 they averaged 23 people. They asked for 9 more positions, 5 for damage prevention and 4 for pipeline safety in the January 2009 Legislative Session, and emergency funding to be able to hire one before Sept, 2009. The legislature approved 11.5 FTE effective Sept, 2009, and an additional FTE was approved for immediate hire (Feb, 2009). As of Aug 24th, they have 25 inspectors on staff, and, effective Sept 1, 2009, are approved for 5 more pipeline safety inspectors plus 5 more Damage Prevention FTEs. Staffing at the end of 2009 was 31 positions with 30 inspectors on staff plus 12 Damage Prevention personnel. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: A.14. Commission Pipeline Safety staff spent considerable time to recruit the additional eleven positions added to the program. A total of five pipeline safety inspectors were added and hired by the end of 2009, and the damage prevention enforcement program increased their staff by 5 positions. This year the Commission is undergoing the Sunset Review by the legislature and the Pipeline Safety program is sharing data regarding the operation and effectiveness of the program. A copy of the self evaluation report indicates the Commission is seeking authority to implement the damage prevention enforcement rules over interstate pipelines as well as the intrastate pipelines already covered. The second phase of the Pipeline Evaluation system PES was rolled out and the accident data base was delivered in February 2010. Total points scored for this section: 25 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, 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) (Chapter 5.1) 6.5 6.5 Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes 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) 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 SLR Notes: B.1. Yes, the procedure manual is best described as a collection of letters of direction. Std, IMP, OQ, Damage Prevention, On-Site operator Training, Constr, incident/accident, Compliance follow-up, & Specialized for Distr, transmission, Haz Liq, & Master Meter are all addressed. IMP-see TX 16 TAC 8.101; OQ-see SOP 16 B, Damage Prevention- as part of Std Insp; On-Site Training-see SOP 22 B & Form PS 55; Constr Insp- see SOP 24 B & TX 16 TAC 8.115; Acc.Inc-see SOP 20 B & SOP 24 hr Emergency Line and Performing On-Call Duties; Compliance Follow-up ? PEZ guidelines, Appendix A (Work in Progress through Closed), Appendix B, & Appendix C. LNG is not addressed because there is no State jurisdictional LNG facility. A procedures revision has been on-going for the last 2 years. 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: B.2. Items a,b,c, & d are all found in Risk Factors for Pipeline Safety Work Plan & the letters of direction. Std-3 yr, Master Meters-5 yr, OQ-5yr, O&M-5 yr, IMP-5 yr, Damage Prevention addressed within a Std & an O&M. 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: B.3 Yes, Units are being inspected in accordance with the Procedures and performance measures. Units are tracked through a data base which flags Systems ( a part of a Unit). In January, the data base prints out all systems that must be inspected in that calendar year. In the event a System is overdue, It is flagged as a 'top of the list' ultra high priority. If it is due in that year, it is flagged as a priority 1. 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: B.4 Yes, RCC uses the Federal Forms for IMP, OQ, Accident, & Drug testing. The Texas accident and construction forms are better than the Federal Forms and they are used in addition to the Federal Forms. The Texas Std Insp Form is slightly less detailed than the Federal Form, & is used for special inspections. Starting in 2007, the RRC started using the Federal Std Insp Form once per Operator per Region once every three years. 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.5. Yes. Checked OQ, Std, & IMP inspections. NA items are now being explained on the Standard Inspection Form. DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 6

6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: B.6. Yes, in 2008, SRCR were tracked by Kendall Smith, an Engineering Specialist, & updates were sent to the Feds. In 2009 SRCR were passed to David Flores, Deputy Director, effective 7/1/09. 7 Did the state review operator procedures for determining areas of active corrosion on liquid lines in sufficient detail? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining areas of active corrosion) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.7. Yes, it is part of the standard inspection, & it is on the liquid inspection check list. .5 0.5 8 Did the state adequately review for compliance operator procedures for abandoning pipeline facilities and analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining compliance with abandoning pipeline facilities and analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.8. Yes, review operator procedures during standard inspection, and is start of the pipeline abandonment approval process. .5 0.5 9 Is the state aware of environmentally sensitive areas traversed by or adjacent to hazardous liquid pipelines? (reference Part 195, review of NPMS) Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.9. Yes. Safety Division uses NPMS and an in-state mapping system to monitor & compare with operator maps. .5 0.5 10 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 195.402(c)(5)? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.10. Yes it is on the Std Insp Pre-evaluation checklist, and is reviewed prior to every Std Insp. 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.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: plus current. B.11. Yes, the inspections reports and the violation letter are kept together as one document. Filing is done by inspection. Records are retained at 4 years 12 Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a 1 1 probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question C(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.12. Yes, in the procedures, see Pipeline Evaluation System (PES) Appendices A, B, & C. Also letter dated August 10, 1994, memo dated May 10, 1990 & memo dated April 1, 1990. Also the new Procedures Manual is approaching completion. This information will be in the Pipeline Technical section. 13 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 C 1 1 (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.13. Yes, in the procedures. See PES Appendix D & the violation form letter. DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 7

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 C(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: B.14. Yes. Progress is tracked using a data-base to avoid delays in the enforcement process. A tracking report is automatically generated every week. 15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative 1 1 has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question C(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.15. Yes, all probable violations are addressed in writing per Standard Procedures (SOP). In addition the violation counts are found in the Hazardous Liquid Certification, attachment 5 summary page. 16 Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that 1 1 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 C(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.16. Yes, RRC requires a Plan of Correction (POC) from the Operator, the POC is reviewed using a Review of Operator Correspondence Form. The Operator Correspondence Form is used to guarantee full compliance. For 2009, the on-line reporting system will cause some modification of compliance reporting procedures. 17 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 C(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 1 1 SLR Notes: B.17. Yes, there were some legal enforcement actions in 2009, resulting in $6,000 assessed and $6,000 in collected administrative penalties. Damage Prevention fines were $973,895 total in 2009. 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question 1 1 C(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.18. Yes, the Violation letter & Operator response are placed in the Inspection file, & if the operator response is sufficient, the violation is closed by the appropriate Agency within the RRC. 19 Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question C(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.19. Yes. .5 0.5 20 Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question C(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.20. Yes, due process is afforded all & is stated in the violation letters. 1 1 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question C(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA. Not 60106(a). 1 NA 22 Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question C(2).2 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 NA Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 8

Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA. Not 60106(a). 23 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 C(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA. Not 60106(a). 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 C(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA. Not 60106(a). 25 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question C(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA. Not 60106(a). 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: B.21-26. NA. Not 60106(a). 27 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: B.27. The Pipeline Evaluation System (PES) is in its second year of operation, and has moved to Phase II to include more online data entry forms and details on accidents and incidents. As a result of data filed, Commission staff have proposed a distribution facility replacement program to manage the issues identified through the leak repair data reports. The Safety Division was awarded 4 additional field positions and one deputy director position during the legislative session of 2009, and an additional field person was added as a result of a reorganization. Personnel training and qualification continue to be an area of focus as the staff has just recently reached the full complement of 31 field inspectors. Damage prevention has grown to 10 staff with 5 additional approved. The two year total of fines for damage prevention has grown to $1.5 MM, and the fines will continue in the $50 to $250 range until 2011 at least. Total points scored for this section: 25 Total possible points for this section: 25 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 9

PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use an inspection form that was approved by the Regional Director? Previous Question C(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question C(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question C(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 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 C(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 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 C(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question C(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question C(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA. Not an Interstate Agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 10

PART D - Accident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an accident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question D.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: NTSB. D.1. Yes. Appendix C specifies 1. Determine if safety violations occurred. 2. Determine root causes of the accident if asked by NTSB. 3. Cooperate with 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 D.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: D.2. Yes, the MOU between NTSB and OPS is understood, and RRC fully cooperates with NTSB. .5 0.5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of accident notifications received? Previous Question D.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: answering service. D.3. Yes, 6 investigations, 14 reports, 46 phone calls. RRC has a full time employee to keep track of incident notifications. Also have an after hours 4 If an onsite investigation of an accident 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 D.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: D.4. Yes, See Form PS-2. All incidents are checked by phone, and determination is made for an on-site visit. All of the Federally reportable accidents that the RRC was notified about had a field visit. 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? 2 2 Previous Question D.5, , comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: D.5. Yes, RRC uses its Form PS-55 for incident investigations, and supplement with Federal Form 11. The events are documented and Appendix C is followed. Including findings of fact, probable cause, and determine if Regulations were followed. 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any accident investigation(s)? Previous Question D.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: appropriate. D.6. Yes, some violations were found. When violations are found, a violation letter is generated and follow up is done. Civil penalties are assessed when 7 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator accident (and forward to PHMSA within 10 Days per 195.58) 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 D.7/D.8 and A.4 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: D.7. Yes, the Safety Division has almost daily contact with PHMSA SW Region and DC to ensure that accident reports are accurate & updated. The reports are reviewed for completeness & to ensure that a final report is submitted. Corrective Action Orders are considered. 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 11

D.8. The Safety Division, RRC, is continuing to see internal corrosion, external corrosion, 3rd party hits, and operator error as the cause of most of Haz Liquid pipeline accidents in Texas. Safety Division is meeting with operators to review accident data to determine if additional mitigative actions are required. In these meetings the Operator is required to show why they 'don't have a problem'. The meetings are used as resources to determine Corrective Action Orders. Effective in the summer of 2009, Operators will be required to meet with the Safety Division to discuss their operations. These meetings are different than an inspection in that it is more of a 'lessons learned' meeting. The first of these "corrective action orders" was signed by the Commissioners August 24, 2010. It is anticipated that further similar type orders will be put into place. Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, 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.12 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: E.1. Yes, Texas is very aware of this and has investigated incidents/accidents related to boring. This is a priority review with Texas, it is on Texas' insp check list & is part of the Third Party Damage Review (DIRT). 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: E.2. The Operator has to self report its excavation plans and results into the Texas on-line reporting system it and includes line marking and One-call. These reports are verified during Std and Damage prevention inspections 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.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: E.3. RRC participated in several damage prevention seminars, & a new damage prevention rule extending authority over excavators was approved by the RRC on May 30, 2007, & it became effective on Sept 1st, 2007. At present, TX has a law that names several CGA best Practices, The RRC Regulation names 10 additional CGA best practices, and the Damage Prevention Program staff is very active in enforcing Damage Prevention 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: E.4. Yes, The Damage Prevention Staff is getting the raw numbers of one-calls and line hits from One-call and the on-line reporting site, and is doing follow-up on almost every damage report that is filed 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 195.402 (c)(5)? Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: E.5. Yes, review of accident records and failure records to discover causes of failure is a major duty of the Damage Prevention Staff 2 2 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: E.6. The TX damage prevention program is off to a great start, but there is much more that could be done. The Commissioners are very supportive of this project. Operator and excavator training, effective treatment of repeat offenders, and adoption of more Best Practices such as Ticket life, and ownership of the Dig ticket, are just some of the areas that need additional work Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, 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: KOCH Pipeline Company, LP, opid 22855 Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Johnny Burgess, Engr Tech 4. Location of Inspection: Flint Hills Resources, 498 Pop Gunn, San Antonio, TX 78219 Date of Inspection: 9/2/2010 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume SLR Notes: F.1 KOCH Pipeline Company, LP, opid 22855 Johnny Burgess, Engr Tech 4. Flint Hills Resources, 498 Pop Gunn, San Antonio, TX 78219. KOCH's San Antonio Star Line (TRC 450937 SA Terminal to Exxon, Product) 9/2/2010 Patrick Gaume 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 1 1 SLR Notes: San Antonio TX F.2 Yes, the operator was notified and 6 employees participated in the inspection which was held in their sister company's (Flint Hills Resources) office in 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 E.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.3 Yes, a RRC Hazardous Liquid Evaluation Checklist, a D&A field inspection, & an OQ Field inspection Protocol 9 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.4 Yes, some areas were marked NA and explained 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps, valve keys, half-cells, etc.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.5 Yes, multi-meter, half-cell, & PPE 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 SLR Notes: F.6 a Special Hazardous liquid inspection using the RRC Hazardous Liquid Evaluation Form Info Only Info Only 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 a. Procedures b. Records DUNS: 028619182 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 14

c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) SLR Notes: F.7 Yes, this was a full RRC Hazardous Liquid Evaluation Inspection & included procedures, records, field, D&A, and three Protocol 9 Inspections 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question E.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.8 Yes, Mr. Burgess demonstrated good and adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program goals and regulations. 2 2 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 E.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: F.9 Yes. 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question E.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.10 Yes. Discussed encroachment as an AOC. Minor corrosion issues. Paperwork was okay. Take better photos of equipment as evidence for line locates. Keep your schematics updated. 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: F.11 Yes. Items observed 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 56469