# 2009 WA HL Program Evaluation - wa2009hlprogramevaluation (Washington; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA wa2009hlprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2009 WA HL Program Evaluation - wa2009hlprogramevaluation (Washington; 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 Washington.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wa-hl-program-evaluation-wa2009hlprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wa-hl-program-evaluation-wa2009hlprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wa-hl-program-evaluation-wa2009hlprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/181/wa2009hlprogramevaluation.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 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Accident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 1

2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Washington Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 04/21/2010 - 04/22/2010 Agency Representative: David Lykken, Pipeline Safety Director Steven King, Director Safety & Consumer Protection Joe Subsits, Chief Engineer Jim Fernald, Operations Manager Alan Lundeen, Policy & Outreach Manager PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, DOT/PHMSA State Programs Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Jeffrey D. Goltz, Chairman Agency: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Address: 1300 South Evergreen Park Drive SW, PO Box 47250 City/State/Zip: Olmpia, WA 98502 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: Yes 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 26 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 23.5 22.8 C Interstate Agent States 6 6 D Accident Investigations 5.5 5.5 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 8 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 9.5 9.5 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 103.5 101.8 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 98.4 DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 2

PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 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) 8 8 SLR Notes: 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance 1 1 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 SLR Notes: Yes, incident reporting is required under WUTC's Commission rule 480-75-630. The telephone number is 1-888-321-9146. Staff members track the reports by the agency's database program and print the information prior to calling or visiting the operator. 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: Yes, last seminar conducted in calendar year 2008, May 13-15 in Seattle, WA. WUTC plans to conduct a hazardous liquid seminar in 2011 with the cooperation of T&Q and other potential presenters. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes, I reviewed WUTC's Pipeline Safety Data Base program on inspections performed by his staff with David Lykken. The program was easy to understand and well maintained. A review of individual file folders and information on inspections performed on the operator was organized in an individual file folder. A review of WUTC's record center found original files and other information relative to the inspection or investigation of accidents to be in a safe and well maintained location under a secure environment. 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 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes, David Lykken has a good working knowledge about documents that need to be submitted to PHMSA pertaining to the Hazardous Liquid grant program and excellent management and field inspection experience. David served as Chief Engineer for 6 years prior to assuming the Director, Pipeline Safety position in November, 2009. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes, No response necessary. David Lykken responded to Tom Finch's letter dated December 21, 2009 pertaining to areas of improvement on December 30, 2009. All areas of improvement have been corrected or steps are being taken to complete in the coming months. DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 3

7 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the 1 1 previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: No action was required because letter to WUTC Chairman did not request a response. Yes, previous action requested in letters has been corrected. 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: Yes, all WUTC pipeline safety engineers have completed the three year requirement courses except Stephanie Zuehlke who has completed six T&Q courses and under the three year time schedule. She completed course PL3291 in 09/2009 and scheduled to attend the remaining courses in 2010. Currently, she is attending the OQ seminar in Denver this week, pigging class in June & ECDA class in Sept, 2010. 9 Brief Description of Non-T&Q training Activities Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: On October 13, 2009 staff attended a Shoring/Excavation Safety class conducted by the state Labor & Industry Office. All Engineers except one attended the training. Listed below are the individuals that attended: Kuang Chu, Lex Vinsel, Alan Lundeen, Stephanie Zuehlke, Scott Rukke, Jim Fernald, Anne Soiza and Al Jones. Stephanie Zuehlke also attended Hazwoper training in January 12-16, 2009. For Operators: None For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: Key staff attended the Citizens Committee on Pipeline Safety meetings in part to provide educate to members on pipeline safety related issues and general pipeline 101 information. Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: 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: Yes, all Engineers have completed the required T&Q courses and computer based training before conducting OQ inspections. 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: Yes, Joe Subsits, Al Jones and Chu Kuang are the leads and have completed all required T&Q Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections. 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): 5 5 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): Ratio: A / B If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 SLR Notes: DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 4

Yes, A. 60.5 total inspection person days: B: (220 x .64=140.8) A/B= 60.5/140.8= 0.42968 meets the large amount of .38 requirement. 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: No. However, if approval is granted by Washington State Legislature in 2011 they will grow the program by one or two engineers to pick up damage prevention enforcement. It is anticipated the retirement of one engineer in 2010 and the position will be filled with the approval of WUTC's Human Resource office. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 26 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 5

PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators) (Chapter 5.1) 6.5 5.75 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: a: Yes, WUTC Pipeline Safety Section Policy & Procedure Manual , Section 14, 15 & 16 b: Yes, Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management Inspection, Section 23; c: Yes, Section 17; d: Yes, Needs improvement, Section 31 (Under development) e: Yes, Section 27 (Operator Training & Technical Assistance) ? Has been developed and effective date is Feb. 1, 2010. This was one of the items mentioned in Tom Finch's letter. f: Yes, Section 21 g: Yes, Section 19, OPS Failure Investigation Policy and Section 20, Major Incident/Accident Response h: Yes, Needs improvement, Section 26 Compliance Follow-up (Under development) 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: Yes, in WUTC's Inspection Manual Section 13, Inspection Scheduling & Prioritization address the procedures for selecting operators. 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: 13. Yes. WUTC has inspected (eleven hazardous liquid operators) to meet their Procedures for Prioritizing Operator Inspections schedule as described in section 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 SLR Notes: Yes. A review of the inspections forms indicated all items in the federal inspection document match their forms. 1 1 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.6 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: WUTC has included there commission rules with the federal regulations on their inspection forms. The forms were found to be complete and being used by staff members in the performance of their work.DUNS: 088967570 Washington 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 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 SLR Notes: No safety related reports were submitted in 2009. .5 NA 7 Did the state review operator procedures for determining areas of active corrosion on liquid lines in sufficient .5 0.5 detail? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining areas of active corrosion) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, this information is reviewed with the operator during the Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Pipeline System Form G-2, section 205 thru 244. Also, the Breakout Tank Inspection Form 10 identifies this item in Section V Tank Data and Field Review. 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 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Yes, WTUC has reviewed Exxon Mobile Company's procedures to determine if they meet the requirements established in their rules and regulations. A review of the accident that occurred on Exxon Mobile facility in 2008 shows the company did perform the required analysis and determined the cause of the accident. 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 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Yes, WUTC GIS mapping system identifies environmentally sensitive areas that traversed by or adjacent to hazardous liquid pipelines which operate in the State of Washington. The mapping system provides updated data on these areas and can print the location(s) map for use by WTUC engineers. 10 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage 1 1 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: Yes, the state has reviewed the 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). This information is covered in WUTC's Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Pipeline System Form G-2. 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: with their procedures. Yes, a review of the probable violations cited against PB Pipeline North America on 5/3/09 was checked. The documentation was followed in accordance 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: Yes, this information is completed and described in WUTC Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures, Section 34, Safety & Consumer Protection Division Compliance & Enforcement Manual. 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: Yes, this information is completed and described in WUTC Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures in Section 34, Safety & Consumer Protection Division Compliance & Enforcement Manual, pages 49 thru 65. DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 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: Yes, this information is located in the WUTC "Project Tracking System". The Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures section 25 identifies this process in detail and requires them to routinely review the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process. They have a ticker system within their email servicer that alerts the Director & Chief Engineer about compliance actions. 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: Yes. The State issued compliance action on probable violations discovered on the Sea TAC Fuel Facilities, LLC on 1/6/09. A review of the report indicated the agency is following its policies and procedures. 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: Yes, WUTC Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures in Section 26, Compliance Follow-up Inspection is under development but they do perform this requirement via the standard inspection guidelines. 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 SLR Notes: N/A. No hearing or show cause was issued in 2009. 1 NA 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: Yes, a review of their files indicated WUTC adequately documented the Sea Tac Fuel Facilities, LLC violations by sending a letter to the company officer. The violations were resolved by meetings with company officers and an agreement to comply with WUTC rules and regulations. 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 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Inc. Yes, a good example of this compliance action was found in the letter sent to Frank J. Grolimund, Vice-President, and Operations with Swissport Fueling, 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Enforcement Manual. Yes, this information is described in WUTC's Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures in Section 34, Safety & Consumer Protection Division Compliance & 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: 1 NA DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 8

22 Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question C(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 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: 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: 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: 26 Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: 27 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Total points scored for this section: 22.75 Total possible points for this section: 23.5 DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes, they use PHMSA federal documents for their inspection activities. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes, this information is documented and entered into SMART by PHMSA Region. Information on interstate inspection units is located on David Lykken's spreadsheet and well documented with inspection units and items found in non-compliance. 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: Yes, information is submitted by WUTC to PHMSA within thirty days. 1 1 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 1 SLR Notes: Yes, probable violations identified by state were referred to PHMSA for compliance against Kinder Morgan on 11/02/09 and Chevron Pipe Line Company on 09/02/09. These items were referred to PHMSA Western Region office within WTUC's thirty day required time schedule. 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: N/A. No imminent safety hazardous leaks or danger to the public were reported in 2009. 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: Yes, information on probable violations are submitted by WUTC to PHMSA within thirty days via email messages or letter. 1 1 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes, WUTC submits documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations along with the federal reporting form. Information is submitted in a timely manner and in accordance to WUTC policy and procedures manual. 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 6 Total possible points for this section: 6 DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 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: Yes, WTUC state personnel are following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an accident in my review of the release of 1.5 bbl of product by BP Pipelines North America on 5/3/09. 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 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Yes, Joe Subsits, Chief Engineer, responded to my question pertaining to the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA by explaining the document's purpose. He provided me a copy of the document which was located in his office and found in the appendix of the 2009 Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program. 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: Yes, one hazardous liquid incident report was made in 2009 and it was found in WUTC's file folder. The requirement for reporting leaks and other damages that occur on the operator's facilities is covered under WUTC Rule WAC 480-75-630 Incident Reporting. 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: Yes. No onsite investigation was performed on BP Pipelines North at 14879 Ovenell Road in Mount Vernon, WA in 2009 because information about the accident was obtained by telephone calls received and made to the operator. Information in the file indicated sufficient data was provided which would not require WUTC to perform an onsite investigation. 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: Yes, information reviewed in the files and folders indicate the investigations performed were thorough and conclusive with findings of facts. 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 SLR Notes: No intrastate accidents or investigations occurred in 2009. Therefore, no state initiated enforcement action was taken. 1 NA 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 SLR Notes: No intrastate accidents or investigations occurred in 2009. Therefore, no state initiated enforcement or follow-up action was taken. .5 NA 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 11

SLR Notes: DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Total points scored for this section: 5.5 Total possible points for this section: 5.5 Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 12

PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Previous Question B.12 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes. WUTC reviewed the 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. A review of WUTC Form G1, Standard Liquid Inspection - Procedures and Plan Review, section 202, page 18 of 23 show this information is included in their review. 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: Yes, this requirement pertaining to the operators to follow the written procedures on notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call systems is located on WUTC Form G2, Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems, Records and Field Inspection, section 84-90 page 5 of 10. 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: Yes, WUTC staff members are encouraging stakeholder groups at local and regional meetings to use the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document as a means to prevention damages from occurring to underground facilities. Alan Lundeen is working closely with several stakeholder groups in proposing changes in their state damage prevention law to have WUTC be the enforcement agency. 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 0 SLR Notes: WUTC has not collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests for hazardous liquid operators. They have implemented the Virtual DIRT program which will be of assistance in obtaining this information in the future. They anticipate having to go to rulemaking to require the hazardous liquid operators to submit this information. 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 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes, this item is in their accident and failure reporting forms. Also, this information is located on their Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems Records Review and Field Inspection form G-2. 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 8 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 13

PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only Name of Operator Inspected: McChord Pipeline Company Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Al Jones, Pipeline Safety Engineer Location of Inspection: Tacoma, WA Date of Inspection: May 17-18, 2010 Name of PHMSA Representative: Glynn Blanton, PHMSA State Programs SLR Notes: The following individuals were present during the performance of the standard hazardous liquid inspection performed by Al Jones. Pipeline Safety Engineer with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Rich Smith, Manager, Engineering US Oil & Refining Company, Harvey Van, Manager Operations, US Oil & Refining Company, Corey Herrick, Chief Engineer, McChord Pipeline Company, John Williamson, Senior Inspector, McChord Pipeline Company, and Marcia Nielsen, Manage Administrative Services, US Oil & Refining Company. The hazardous liquid pipeline was constructed and installed in 1966 by Pipeline Service Corporation. In 1967, Buckeye Pipe Line purchased the pipeline and operated the line until 1996 when it was purchased by McChord Pipeline Company. US Oil & Refining Company owns and operates McChord Pipeline Company. The 14.25 mile, 6 inch coat tar, 0.188 wall, API 5L grade B pipeline is the sole source of jet fuel to McChord Air force Base in Tacoma, WA. The pipeline has three isolated valves, one check valve and operates at 21% of SMYS. Maximum allowable operating pressure is 720 psig and MOP of 450 psig. The pipeline was hydro-tested after it was purchased in 1996 and a MFL smart pigged is conducted every five years. The last MFL smart pigging was performed in 2009. Five defects were found during the pigging and corrective action was taken within 60 days of detection. A close interval survey is performed every 5 years on the pipeline. The last survey was performed in 2009 found no low readings. The pipeline crosses several interstate highways including I-5 and four bodies of water. Jet fuel is provided to McChord Air force Base three times a week with approximately 7,000 bbl being transferred within 8 hrs. No leaks have occurred on the pipeline in the 43 years of service. 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: The operator was notified six weeks in advance of the inspection and provided the hazardous liquid standard inspection forms, Washington UTC forms G-1 and G-2. Al Jones used the forms which did include questions pertaining to the operator's drug and alcohol compliance to PHMSA rules and regulations. 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 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes, Al Jones used the WUTC Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems Procedures & Plan Review form G-1 & WUTC Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems Records Review & Field Inspection form G-2. These forms were used in progressing through the inspection and insure a complete review of the pipeline safety regulations and Washington state commission rules was performed. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: The form consisted of four specific blocks at the end of each question pertaining to compliance with the pipeline safety regulations or Washington State Commission rules. If no area of concerns or compliance issues were found the "S" satisfactory was checked. The letter "U" unsatisfactory was used when a violation was cited and a description of the reason for the violation was provided in the comment section of the form. No violations were found or cited during this inspection. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes. Al Jones reviewed the operator's maps on test station and rectifier locations along with the valve keys used to turn valves. During the field inspection, Al Jones took pipe to soil readings at each test station and rectifier location and found no low readings. 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 DUNS: 088967570 2009 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 14

Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Al Jones conducted a Standard Inspection using Utilities and Transportation Commission Standard Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems Procedures and Plan Review, Form GS-1 and Utilities and Transportation Commission Standard R
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 64478