Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA tx2012hlprogramevaluation
2012 TX HL Program Evaluation - tx2012hlprogramevaluation (Texas; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA tx2012hlprogramevaluation
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS 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 -- Accident Investigations F -- Damage Prevention G -- Field Inspections H -- Interstate Agent State (if applicable) I -- 60106 Agreement State (if applicable) DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 1#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 22012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Texas Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 03/25/2013 - 09/27/2013 Agency Representative: Ms. Polly McDonald, Director Safety Division PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume, State Liaison Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: The Honorable Barry T. Smitherman, Chairman Agency: Railroad Commission of Texas Address: 1701 North Congress Ave. PO Box 12967 City/State/Zip: Austin, Texas 78711-2967 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 2012 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual progress report attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART G): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART G, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A Progress Report and Program Documentation Review 10 10 B Program Inspection Procedures 15 15 C Program Performance 43 39 D Compliance Activities 15 15 E Accident Investigations 9 9 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 112 108 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 96.4 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 2#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, 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: A1. Yes. Attachment 1 is consistent with Attachment 3 and is generated out of their database. 1 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy - Progress Report Attachment 2 (A1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A2. YES. The inspector field days are a roll up of actual field hours worked from the time sheets. 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: A3. Yes. The attachment is a data upload from PES database. 1 1 4 Were all federally reportable incident reports listed and information correct? - Progress 1 1 Report Attachment 4 (A1d) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A4. YES. The significant incidents were reported and other incidents were reported that were considered significant by either the TRC or the operator. 5 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities - Progress Report Attachment 5 (A1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: A5. YES. The PES database is the source for violations and compliance actions. The fines are from a spreadsheet that captures 'Agreed Orders' from legal. 6 Were pipeline program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report 2 2 Attachment 6 (A1f, A4) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: A6. Yes. Each report was known as listed in Attachment 6 and each is kept electronically effective cy2011, and in paper file, or combination paper & electronic for prior years. 7 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? - Progress Report Attachment 7 (A1g) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A7. Yes, Attachment 7 is consistent with the TQ online reports and internal records. 1 1 8 Verification of Part 195,198,199 Rules and Amendments - Progress Report Attachment 8 (A1h) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: A8. Yes. Attachment 8 is reported correctly. 1 1 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 3#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 49 List of Planned Performance - Did state describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail - Progress Report Attachment 10 (H1-3) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 A9. YES. Attachment 10 details several identified performance goals and metrics. 10 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: A10. Activities other than NAPSR Committees include: The program continues its study of composite wrap repairs that are proposed as the next generation beyond 'Armour All' that could be applied to either steel or plastic pipe, and digital X-Rays for forensic studies as well as NDT of construction or repair welds of both PE (both high density & medium density) and steel pipe. During April 2012, Texas participated in National Safe Digging Month by giving educational awareness presentations the Houston and Harris County area. Also in CY 2012, the program manager participated in the Pipeline Safety Subcommittee meetings at the NARUC Annual Meeting. Total points scored for this section: 10 Total possible points for this section: 10 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 4#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 5PART B - Program Inspection Procedures Points(MAX) Score 1 Standard Inspections (B1a) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: B1. Yes. The policy states that unit inspections will not exceed 5 calendar years. 2 2 2 IMP Inspections (B1b) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 B2. Yes. Policy states that the inspections will not exceed 5 years. IMP-see SOP 17B, 1st paragraph. TX 16 TAC 8.101. 3 OQ Inspections (B1c) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 B3. Yes. Policy states that the inspections will not exceed 5 calendar years. OQ-see SOP 16B, Inspection Frequency. 4 Damage Prevention Inspections (B1d) 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: B4. Yes. Policy states that the inspections will not exceed 5 calendar years. Damage Prevention-see SOP 7B. 5 On-Site Operator Training (B1e) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: B5. Yes. On-Site Operator training will not exceed 5 years but is recognized as an on-going event. . -see SOP 7B- Specialized Inspections, & SOP 22B Accidents & Special Investigations. 6 Construction Inspections (B1f) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: B6. Yes. TX regulation requires 30 day advance notice of new constr & The filing of Form PS 48, which allows the scheduling of Construction inspections as staff loads allow. Constr-see SOP 24B & TX 16 TAC 8.115. 7 Incident/Accident Investigations (B1g) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: B7. Yes. The decision to make on-site investigations is made by supervisors. All reportable incident/accident will include telephonic and written reports. incident/accident-see SOP 22B & SOP 20B. 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 area, 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: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 5#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 6f. Are inspection units broken down appropriately? Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: B8. Yes, See SOP 6B for Length of time requirements, See PES 'Risk Factors' and 'Inspection Frequency' spreadsheets for previous violation count, population density, customer count, material type, loss & unaccounted gas, class location, off shore, HVL, ID>10", outside of time frequency, recommended inspection intervals by priority and type. 9 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: B9. The Pipeline Evaluation System (PES) is in its fifth year of operation, and has been in Phase II for two years. The program continues to add more forms in PES, with more online data entry forms and details on accidents and incidents and inspector weekly work reports. Distribution operators continued using the Leak Repair Data Form (PS-95), initiated in CY 2010, to report leak repair data every six months. As a result of the data filed, in 2011 the Commission adopted a new rule and implemented a distribution facilities replacement program to manage the highest risks identified through the leak repair data reports as well as other information. Personnel training and qualification continue to be an area of focus, because in 2013 and 2014, the program will be hiring 14 new pipeline safety inspectors, bringing the total number of inspectors to 49. Construction in the Barnett Shale has slowed somewhat but continues to be active. Another shale play, the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas (about 70 miles SW of San Antonio), remains active, primarily in the northern portion where liquids production is prevalent. Increased production in the Permian Basin is also driving new construction in that part of the state. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 6#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 7PART C - Program Performance Points(MAX) Score 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection person-days to total person days acceptable? Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 775.00 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 4.61 = 1014.75 Ratio: A / B 775.00 / 1014.75 = 0.76 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 Evaluator Notes: C1. YES. 775 field days, 4.61 inspector-years, 775/(4.61*220)=.764. .764>.38 okay. 5 5 2 Has each inspector and program 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 IMP Training before conducting inspection as lead Yes No Needs Improvement c. Root Cause Training by at least one inspector/prgram manager Yes No Needs Improvement d. Note any outside training completed Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: C2. 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 are scheduled for the rest. State- all Inspectors are HAZWOPER certified and defensive driving trained. About half of the inspectors are H2S certified. Starting in 2009 all hands took or renewed their HAZWOPER, and received instruction in using the new 'PES' database. In August, 2012 an All Hands meeting focused on accident investigation, DIMP, and the State facility replacement rule. HAZWOPER refresher was given to all. Operators ? training in PS 95 reporting of leak repairs (state requirement & state database), GIMP & DIMP training, and damage prevention program were all presented in the September 2012 in San Antonio Pipeline Safety Seminar with PHMSA T&Q and the TGA. Non-operator/public ? Made presentations about Pipeline Safety to the Houston City Council, Port Arthur Local Emergency Planning Comm, , at an International technology conference, at the UT School of Business, met, talked, toured with three foreign delegations, and with the fed GAO. 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: C3. Yes. The Program Manager & the records review show a professional knowledge of the regulations. 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: C4. Yes. Chairman letter was dated Jan 16, 2012. The response was dated March 18, 2012. 63 days less 5 days for mail, okay. Each of the 6 items were discussed with steps to improve. 5 Did State hold PHMSA TQ Seminar in Past 3 Years? Chapter 8.5 (A3) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 7#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 8C5. Yes, in Corpus Christi in June, 2010, with LA & MS in July, 2010; In Lake Conroe in June, 2011, joint with LA in July, 2011; with LA in July of 2012, with LA in July of 2013 & in San Antonio in September of 2013. The new practice is to request a seminar almost every year. 6 Did state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in written procedures? Chapter 5.1 (B3) Yes = 5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-4 5 4 Evaluator Notes: C6. NI 4 pts. Certain OQ and IMP work has not been completed per State Procedures; specifically, some OQ and IMP inspections were not done or were not loaded into the IMDB databases. This problem was identified and addressed during late 2012 and to date during 2013. Significant effort is being made on this issue. This work has become associated with the OPID cleanup work that TX has been helping PHMSA HQ with. This effort will require the remainder of 2013 and all or most of 2014. This work will continue being flagged as a 'top of the list' ultra high priority. 7 Did inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal 2 1 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: C7. NI, 1 pts. Several inspections were reviewed and most had problems. Some of the problems were: The Federal Inspection form was not completely filled out; NA & NC items were not explained; the inspection form showed an item to be satisfactory that was identified as a PV in the letter; items identified as unsatisfactory were not addressed in the letter; and, in one case, the federal form was not used. 8 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) (B7) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C8. Yes, it is part of the standard inspection, & it is on the liquid inspection check list. 1 1 9 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) (B8) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 C9. Yes, review operator procedures during standard inspection, and is part of the pipeline abandonment approval process. 10 Is the state aware of environmentally sensitive areas traversed by or adjacent to hazardous liquid pipelines? (reference Part 195, review of NPMS) (B9) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: 1 1 C10. Yes. Safety Division uses NPMS and an in-state mapping system to monitor & compare with operator maps. 11 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including 1 1 reported third party damage and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 195.402(c)(5)? (B10,E5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: C11. Yes it is on the Hazardous Liquid standard inspection form, and is reviewed during every Std Insp. Review of accident records and failure records to discover causes of failure is a major duty of the Damage Prevention Staff. 12 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Has the state reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? Data Initiative (G5-8,G15) 2 2 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 8#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 9Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C12. Yes. The reports are compared against the Operator's pipeline permit, the Federal Operator ID, and against PES. The Annual Reports are used to track leak reports, unaccounted for losses, and histories. ALL distribution system and plastic transmission & gathering repaired leaks in Texas must be reported twice a year into an on-line system. This information is then analyzed for a whole spectrum of trends. In addition, TRC has full access to DIRT, which provides additional data resources. 13 Did state input all applicable OQ, IMP inspection results into federal database in a timely 2 1 manner? This includes replies to Operator notifications into IMDB database. Chapter 5.1 (G9-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C13. NI 1 pt. see question C.6. This problem was identified in the 2011 evaluation. Dedicated efforts to upload OQ & IMP reports was started in 2012 and continues to date in 2013. Problems with the databases have been identified and this work is on-going. This continues to be an area of dedicated effort. 14 Has state confirmed intrastate operators have submitted information into NPMS database along with changes made after original submission? (G13) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Evaluator Notes: during Unit inspections. C14. Yes, NPMS updates are linked with the annual pipeline permit renewals. Unit maps are compared against NPMS 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: C15. Yes, is part of every Std Insp. I recommended the use of the D&A Long Form (Form 3.1.11) during HQ O&M inspections. 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 195 Part G (I4-7) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C16. Yes, TRRC has OQ inspected every Operator and is in the process of Re-inspecting all Operators. I observed that PES is used to document OQ verifications. The completed Federal OQ forms are uploaded into PES. 17 Is state verifying operator's hazardous liquid integrity management (L IMP) Programs are 2 1 up to date? This should include a previous review of LIMP 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 195.452 Appendix C (C8-12) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C17. NI 1 pt. see C.6. This problem was identified in the 2011 evaluation. Dedicated efforts to upload OQ & IMP reports was started in 2012 and continues to date in 2013. Problems with the databases have been identified and this work is on- going. This continues to be an area of dedicated effort. DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 9#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 1018 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 195.440 (I13-16) PAPEI Effectiveness Inspections should be complete by December 2013 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: C18. Yes, TRRC participated in the Clearing House activity, & has contacted every Operator. New Operators are being directed to develop public awareness plans. Until 2011, Public Awareness was addressed during Std Inspections. During 2011 certain TRC staff received PAPEE training, and then participated in three HQ PAPEI inspections. 19 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). (G19-20) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: C19. Yes, through a well-designed web site, numerous Damage Prevention Seminars, & periodic informational mail outs. In addition, all records are public open records, and many can be accessed on-line. 20 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: C20. Yes, SRCR are handled by Steven Rios in 2011 & 2012. Monitoring of SRC are current. 1 1 21 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: C21. Yes, TRRC is an active participant in NAPSR. 1 1 22 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: C22. Distribution operations continued to use the Leak Repair Data Form (PS-95), implemented in CY 2010. As a result of data filed, in 2011 the Commission adopted a new rule and implemented a distribution facilities replacement program to manage the highest risks identified through the leak repair data reports as well as other information. The program also requires operators to manage the issues identified through the leak repair data reports and in CY 2012 they filed the initial annual replacement plans. In future years, operators will file annual reports detailing prior year progress plus coming year agenda. Personnel training and qualification continue to be an area of focus as the inspector staff approaches the full complement of 49 field inspectors. Construction in the Barnett Shale continues to be active, although at a somewhat slower pace, and another play, the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas (about 70 miles SW of San Antonio), has become active. The Texas Damage Prevention program appears to be improving safety and awareness. In CY 2012 through present, personnel participated in 32 events throughout the state making Safe Digging presentations and providing regulatory resource assistance on safety standards or best practices. Overall 'line hits' per thousand line locate requests were 3.98 in CY 2012, compared to 4.92 hits/1000 in CY 2011, and 7.09 hits/1000 in CY 2008. The proposed use for the 2011 suspension funds grant will be to continue to provide support for the further development of the Texas Damage Reporting Form (TDRF) for reporting of pipeline damage due to excavation activities. Despite the budget challenges faced by many state governments in recent years, the Commission's Pipeline Safety Division inspector staffing was increased by the 83rd Texas Legislature. Senate Bill 1 authorized 20 additional full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) for pipeline safety activities, including inspection of intrastate pipeline and pipeline facilities, with an appropriation of $2,631,828. The budgeted staff is now at a total of 83.0 positions for Fiscal Year 2014 (Sept. 1, 2013-Aug. 31, 2014). Supervisory personnel currently occupy five positions; designated technical functions will be 60 positions; and administrative support will fill the remaining 18 positions. There will be 49 persons with the functional job title of "inspector," an increase of 14 from the current 35 inspectors. The Pipeline Damage Prevention Program staff willDUNS: 028619182 Texas 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 10#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 11increase by four positions. The Commission is no longer under a hold for replacing vacant positions and the Division anticipates being able to fill all authorized positions by early 2014. As in previous years, the Commission intends to maintain the field staff to conduct safety inspections. Personnel will spend approximately 85 percent of their time in the regulation of natural gas pipeline facilities and the remaining 15 percent in the regulation of hazardous liquids pipelines. All field offices are staffed with engineers and/or engineering specialists. Total points scored for this section: 39 Total possible points for this section: 43 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 11#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, 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: D1. Yes. See SOP 19A ? It is detailed guidance that directs letters to be sent to Corporate Officers, and directs the path of a PV from beginning to end. Also see Pipeline Evaluation System (PES) Appendices A, B, C, & D. 2 Did the state follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately 4 4 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 director 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: D2. Yes, at this point, the information is increasingly residing in PES, and also in the paper files. Records are retained at 4 years plus current. An item of note; in the case of some Master Meters & municipal systems, two letters will be sent, one to the Owner / Mayor, and the other to the Operating Manager. 3 Did the state issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (B15) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 Evaluator Notes: D3. Yes, all probable violations are addressed in writing per Standard Procedures (SOP 19A). In addition the violation counts are found in the Gas Certification, attachment 5 summary page. 4 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. (B17, B20) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: D4. Yes, due process is provided to all. It is required by law and by SOP. 2 2 5 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were 2 2 civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) (B27) Yes = 2 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: D5. Yes, The Program Manager & staff are familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties. The processes for using civil penalties are understood and used. Civil penalties are issued and collected every year. 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: D6. Yes, The TRC uses civil penalties as an integral part of their resources to achieve compliance with the regulations. 7 General Comments: Info Only Info Only DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 12#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 13Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: D7. The Pipeline Evaluation System (PES) is in its fifth year of operation, and has moved to Phase III to include more online data entry forms; including federal forms and report formats for the incident tab. Special project teams were implemented for FY 2012 to address Drug & Alcohol, O&M, Public Awareness, Damage Prevention, New Construction, OQ, DIMP and IMP Specialty Inspections. Scheduled for the future are Control Room Management Specialty Inspections. Prior to performing evaluations or inspections, (IMP, Breakout Tank, O&M, Incident investigations, etc.) and at the operators' request, training is given to operating and maintenance personnel that will be involved in the inspections or evaluations. This training has proven to increase safety and reduce violations. It also enhances the knowledge of the operator's personnel and provides them with a better understanding of the written procedures and processes that are needed to answer the questions; "who, what, where, when, how and why". These classes also assist in achieving a more effective and valuable evaluation or inspection for both the inspector and the operator. Total points scored for this section: 15 Total possible points for this section: 15 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 13#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 14PART E - Accident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Does state have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of 2 2 accidents, 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: E1. Yes. Appendix C of the State Guidelines specifies 1. Determine if safety violations occurred. 2. Determine root causes of the accident if asked by NTSB. 3. Cooperate with NTSB. The MOU between NTSB and OPS is understood, and RRC fully cooperates with NTSB. TRC has a full time employee to keep track of incident notifications. Also have an after-hours answering service. 2 If onsite investigation was not made, did state obtain sufficient information from the 1 1 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: E2. Yes, See PES, Incident tab. All incidents are checked by phone, and determination is made for an on-site visit. All of the federally reportable incidents that the RRC was notified about had a field visit. 3 Were all accidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and 3 3 recommendations? (D5) Yes = 3 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1-2 a. Observations and document review Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing Factors Yes No Needs Improvement c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Evaluator Notes: E3. Yes, RRC uses PES Incident Report for incident investigations, and supplements 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. 4 Did the state initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident/accident 1 1 investigation? (D6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: E4. Yes, hundreds of violations are issued every year. When violations are found, a violation letter is generated and follow up is done. Civil penalties are assessed when appropriate, typically for repeat violations. 5 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the 1 1 operator accident 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: E5. Yes, the Pipeline Safety Division has almost daily contact with PHMSA SW Region and DC to ensure that incident reports are accurate & updated. The reports are reviewed for completeness & to ensure that a final report is submitted. If PV are found they are communicated to the SW Region office. 6 Does state share lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (sharing information, such as: at NAPSR Region meetings, state seminars, etc) (G15) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 1 Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 14#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 15E6. Yes, Texas reports at the SW Region Meeting. 7 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: E7. Incidents continue to be a highly visible issue for the Commission. Incident reporting and tracking have been migrated into the PES system which became active in February 2009. Pipeline operators and excavators are using the on-line damage prevention excavation incident reporting programs. The Commission has seen another reduction of the number of excavation damage to pipelines in 2012, particularly as expressed as line hits per 1000 locate requests. The Commission has adopted rules for distribution operators for leak survey, leak grading, and leak reporting to help find leaks and repair them prior to the incident. As a result of data filed, Commission staff has implemented a distribution facility replacement program to manage the issues identified through the leak repair data reports. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 15#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 16PART F - Damage Prevention Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or 2 2 its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? (E1) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: F1. 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 Excavation Damage Review (DIRT). 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written 2 2 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: F2. Yes, 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. The Federal Forms are used for Standard Inspections. 3 Did the state encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground 2 2 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: F3. Yes, RRC participated in 32 damage prevention seminars. The damage prevention rule extending authority over excavators has been in effect for over four years and awareness of the rule continues to expand. 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. There is pending regulation to require that 10 additional CGA best practices be followed. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated 2 2 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: F4. 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. For CY 2012 the raw data shows 8,574 hits, 14,083 hit reports, and 2,157,637 one-calls. TRRC was an early user of DIRT, & has their own version of Virtual DIRT. 5 General Comments: Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: F5. The TX damage prevention program is proving to be effective in raising awareness of the requirement to call 8-1-1 before excavating and reducing line hits. Pipeline Damage Prevention has 12 staff currently, which will grow to 16 in CY 2014. The September 2007 through August 2013 total for fines in damage prevention has grown to $8.2 million, and most fines will continue to be cited at $1,000 per violation. The Pipeline Damage Prevention regulations have been in effect for several years; as of August 27, 2012, the fines increased to the $2,000 to $2,500 range per assessed violation. Because of an increase in the statutory administrative penalty amounts, beginning September 1, 2013, the Commission is allowed to assess penalties as high as $200,000 per violation, with a $2 million cap on a related series of violations, based on specific facts and circumstances. Operator and excavator training, effective treatment of repeat offenders, and adoption of more Best Practices such as ticket life, revision of jurisdictional depth, and clarification of the excavation tolerance zone, are just some of the areas that continue to be developed. The anticipated revision of the Chapter 18 damage prevention rules will likely become effective in CY 2014. Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 8 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 16#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 17PART G - Field Inspections Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Western Refining Company, L.P Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Gary Parker, Inspector Location of Inspection: El Paso, TX Date of Inspection: 3/25-26/13 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Evaluator Notes: Info Only Info Only G1. Western Refining Company, L.P.; Gary Parker, Inspector, TRC; El Paso, TX; 3/25-26/13; Patrick Gaume. 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: G2. Yes, the inspection was held at their office and 8 employees participated. 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: G3. Yes, Federal Form 3 with several State addendum sheets. 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (F4) 2 2 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G4. Yes, this was a standard inspection and addressed and documented procedures, records, and field. 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection 1 1 to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps,valve keys, half cells, etc) (F5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G5. Yes; half-cell, multimeter, OQ personnel, work permits, PPE, cell phones, control room cooperation and participation, hand tools. 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: G6. Yes; procedures, records, and field were all addressed. 2 2 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 17#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 187 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) (F8) Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 Evaluator Notes: G7. Yes; Gary is fully knowledgeable and became an inspector after retiring from the Pipeline Industry. 2 2 8 Did the inspector conduct an exit interview? (If inspection is not totally complete the 1 1 interview should be based on areas covered during time of field evaluation) (F9) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G8. Yes; A PV was identified, 195-408-503, the procedures for responding to an abnormal operation was inadequate; the emergency phone number was discovered to be inoperable, and the response per the procedures was inadequate to the work that was actually required. The procedures need to be expanded. 9 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the 1 1 inspections? (if applicable) (F10) Yes = 1 No = 0 Evaluator Notes: G9. Yes; A PV was identified, 195-408-503, the procedures for responding to an abnormal operation was inadequate; the emergency phone number was discovered to be inoperable, and the response per the procedures was inadequate to the work that was actually required. The procedures need to be expanded. 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 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 18#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, page 19C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other Evaluator Notes: G10. Items observed in the field; site security, work orders, PPE, air-soil interface, bolts & threads on flanges, 150 series flanges for a 285 MOP, signs & markers, ROW, evidence of the close interval survey, CP for pipe & casing, atmospheric corrosion, valve actuation, coordination with the control room for valve actuation, remote valve actuation, insulator kit, relief valve verification, informal field check of operator knowledge, Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 19#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, 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: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 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: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 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: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 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: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 1 NA 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? (C5) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 1 NA 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? (C6) Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 Evaluator Notes: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 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: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. 1 NA 8 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: H.1-8, NA. Not an interstate Partner. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 20#
TX HL Program Evaluation, 2012, 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: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. 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: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. 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: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. 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 Evaluator Notes: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. 1 NA 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: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. 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: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. 1 NA 7 General Comments: Info Only = No Points Evaluator Notes: I.1-7, NA. Not a 60106 State Program Partner. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 028619182 2012 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Texas RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Page: 21#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.