# 2010 WA HL Program Evaluation - wa2010hlprogramevaluation (Washington; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** PHMSA wa2010hlprogramevaluation
- **title:** 2010 WA HL Program Evaluation - wa2010hlprogramevaluation (Washington; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
- **source type:** inspection
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2010-01-01
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 2010 PHMSA hazardous liquid program evaluation for Washington.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wa-hl-program-evaluation-wa2010hlprogramevaluation.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wa-hl-program-evaluation-wa2010hlprogramevaluation.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-state-evaluation-wa-hl-program-evaluation-wa2010hlprogramevaluation
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/subdoc/186/wa2010hlprogramevaluation.pdf
**body:**

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2010 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 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 1

2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Washington Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 06/27/2011 - 07/01/2011 Agency Representative: David Lykken, Pipeline Safety Director Steven King, Director Safety & Consumer Protection Joe Subsits, Chief Engineer 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 S. Evergreen Park Drive SW PO Box 47250 City/State/Zip: Olympia, WA 98504-7250 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 2010 (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 24 24 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 23.5 23.5 C Interstate Agent States 3 3 D Accident Investigations 5.5 5.5 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 9.5 8.5 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 98.5 97.5 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.0 DUNS: 088967570 2010 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) SLR Notes: Yes, all information was submitted correctly on the 2011 certification document. 8 8 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, a Hazardous Liquid Safety Seminar was held in Olympia, WA on May 12, 2011. The number of participates was 29 representing 9 companies. The seminar was coordinated with the T&Q training center and other industry representatives. 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 their Pipeline Safety Data Base. File folders and information provided during this review was found well organized in individual folders. I reviewed the record center location where these files are maintained and it was 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 with WUTC 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 SLR Notes: No response was necessary due to no items of concern were found or noted. 1 NA 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 DUNS: 088967570 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 1 NA Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 3

Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: No response was necessary due to no items of concern were found or noted. 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 SLR Notes: Yes, all engineers have completed the required training courses at T&Q. 3 3 9 Brief Description of Non-T&Q training Activities Info Only = No Points For State Personnel: On October 26-27, 2010 House Fire Explosion Investigation Training was conducted in-house with all engineers attended the course. The course was presented by Sammy Russo. Additionally, on November 16, 2010, all engineers attend the Incident Investigation/Root Cause Analysis Training conducted by Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc. at their location. For Operators: A Hazardous Liquid T&Q Seminar was conducted in May, 2011. Two damage prevention training seminars were conducted in Vancouver and Spokane, WA. Representatives from the operators and contractor communities were in attendance. For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: WUTC continues to participate in the Citizens Committee on Pipeline Safety meetings providing education on pipeline safety regulations and initiatives from PHMSA. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: Yes, all lead engineers have completed the required T&Q courses and computer based training before conducting OQ inspections. David Cullom, Pipeline Safety Engineer, is scheduled to attend the OQ training and complete the WBT course in 2012. 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 SLR Notes: Yes, Joe Subsits, Scott Rukke, Chu Kuang are the lead engineers and have completed all required courses. 1 1 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 5 5 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 88.79 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 0.73 = 160.60 Ratio: A / B 88.79 / 160.60 = 0.55 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 SLR Notes: A = 88.79 total inspection person days: B: (220 x .73=160.6) A/B= 88.79/160.6= 0.55 meets the larger amount of .38 requirements. This amount meets the larger amount and an award of five points is charged in this category. DUNS: 088967570 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 4

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: WUTC will be adding one engineer to their pipeline and hazardous liquid programs in calendar year 2011. Alan Jones will be performing and spending more time in the integrity management review of operators. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: No issues or areas of concern in this section. Total points scored for this section: 24 Total possible points for this section: 24 DUNS: 088967570 2010 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) 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) 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, Section 33 has been added to the WUTC Pipeline Safety Section Policy Manual e: Yes, Section 27 (Operator Training & Technical Assistance) f: Yes, Section 21 g: Yes, Section 19, OPS Failure Investigation Policy and Section 20, Major Incidents h: Yes, Section 26, Compliance Follow-up Inspections were added in 2010 to the manual. 6.5 6.5 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 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, WUTC's Inspection Manual Section 1.3 address the scheduling and prioritization of the hazardous liquid operator inspection reviews. 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: schedule. Yes, in calendar year 2010 they inspected seven of the eleven hazardous liquid operators. The remaining four will be scheduled within a three year time 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: Yes, a review of WTUC's inspection forms indicates all items in the federal inspection document match their form. 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: Yes, all portions of the inspection form are being completed with required information. I reviewed seven inspection reports performed by staff members in 2010 and found all information in the forms were complete and accurate. DUNS: 088967570 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington 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 2010. .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: form. Questions 78. Yes, a review of the inspection performed on McChord Pipeline Company May17-19, 2010 indicated the abandonment issue is addressed in the inspection 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 and Map Viewer allow the public to identify environmentally sensitive areas and the location of pipelines in the State of Washington. The GIS mapping system allows WUTC staff to make copies of the pipeline location and facilities prior to performing an inspection. 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, WUTC reviews the operator's records of previous accidents and failures which include the reporting of third party damage and leaks to ensure the operator's response comply with 195.402(c)(5). I reviewed Chevron Pipe Line inspection report dated July 13-14, 2010 and found this information was addressed with the operator. 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: cited. Yes, a review of the inspection on Chevron Ferndale Storage Terminal July 13-14 found adequate documentation was being recorded on the 11 violations 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: Manual. Yes, this is described in WUTC Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures, Section 34, Safety & Consumer Protection Division Compliance & Enforcement 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: Manual page 13. Yes, this is described in WUTC Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures in Section 34, Safety & Consumer Protection Division Compliance & Enforcement DUNS: 088967570 2010 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 in detail and requires a routine review of the progress toward compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdown of the enforcement process. They have a ticker system within their email server that alerts the Director & Chief Engineer about compliance actions. 15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (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(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: Yes, a review of the inspection on Chevron Ferndale Storage Terminal July 13-14 found 11 violations were cited. 1 1 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, a review of the inspection report on Chevron Ferndale Storage Terminal July 13-14 found 11 violations were cited. WUTC is following its Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures in Section 26, Compliance Follow-up Inspections, regarding the corrective action the operator is taking to correct the violations. 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: No "Show Cause Hearings" were conducted in calendar year 2010. 1 NA 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question C(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: Yes, a review of Chevron Ferndale Storage Terminal inspection report indicated this was being accomplished. 1 1 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: officer. Yes, a review of letters and other correspondence to Chevron Ferndale Storage Terminal operator indicate all information is being sent to the company 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: and Enforcement Manual. Yes, this information is described in WUTC's Pipeline Safety Policy and Procedures in Section 34, Safety and 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 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 8

22 SLR Notes: 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 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 SLR Notes: 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 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 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: Yes, the program manager is familiar with the state process for imposing civil penalties and this information is described in WUTC's Pipeline Safety Policy & Procedures, Section 34. Safety & Consumer Protection Division Compliance & Enforcement Manual. 28 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: No issues or areas of concern in this section. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 23.5 Total possible points for this section: 23.5 DUNS: 088967570 2010 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 are using the federal inspection forms. A review of the inspection performed on Conoco Phillips Pipe Line Company on October 28. 2010 indicated this requirement is being met. 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 posted in SMART by PHMSA Western Region. Information on interstate inspection units is identified in WUTC spreadsheet and well documented with inspection units and items found in non-compliance with the regulations. 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 1 1 SLR Notes: inspection visit. Yes, all information on inspections performed is submitted by WUTC to PHMSA Western Region office within thirty days after completion of the 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 SLR Notes: No probable violations were found or referred to PHMSA Western Region in calendar year 2010. 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? Previous Question C(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: No imminent safety hazardous leaks or danger to the public were reported in calendar year 2010. 1 NA 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: No probable violations were cited or forwarded to PHMSA Western Region in calendar year 2010. 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: No probable violations were cited or forwarded to PHMSA Western Region in calendar year 2010. 1 NA 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: No issues of concern in this section. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 3 Total possible points for this section: 3 DUNS: 088967570 2010 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, WUTC personnel are following the written procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an accident. In my review of the ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company accident in the Yellowstone Pipe Line Spokane area on February 22, 2010, WUTC notified PHMSA about the incident and monitored the filing of the accident report. 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: Yes, WUTC is familiar and aware of the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA. .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: Yes, only one hazardous liquid incident report was made in 2010. A review of the file folder indicated information was adequately received. 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 ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company accident because information about the incident was obtained by telephone calls. Information reviewed 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 located in the file folder indicated the investigation was thorough and findings of facts were determined. 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 2010. 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 2010. N/A .5 NA 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: DUNS: 088967570 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 11

No issues or areas of concern in this section. Total points scored for this section: 5.5 Total possible points for this section: 5.5 DUNS: 088967570 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 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. A review of WUTC Form G1, Standard Liquid Inspection - Procedures and Plan Review, section 202, page 18 of 23 indicate this information is included in their review. WTUC reviews the directional drilling/boring procedures with 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. 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: section 84-90 page 5 of 10. Yes, this requirement is located on WUTC Form G2, Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems ?Records and Field Inspection, 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 the Northwest Common Ground Meetings to use the best practices document to prevent damages from occurring on underground facilities. 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: Yes, WUTC has a State Damage Prevention Statistics Mandatory Reporting form requirement for those operators under their jurisdiction to report damages. They have implemented the Virtual DIRT program , a volunteer participation for only pipeline operators to report the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate request in 2009. In January 1, 2013, the new damage prevention law will require all underground operators and excavators to report all damages via the Virtual Dirt Program to WUTC. 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 requirement is in their accident and incident reporting form located in Standard Inspection Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems Record Review and Field Inspection Form G-2. 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: No issues or areas of concerns in this section. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 088967570 2010 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: Tidewater Terminal Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Joe Subsits, Chief Engineer & David Cullom, Engineer Location of Inspection: Pasco, WA Date of Inspection: July 13-14, 2011 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 Joe Subsits and David Cullom with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Mark Davis, Terminals Operations Supervisor, Josh Jarman, EHS&S Specialist, William (Bill) Collins, Environmental Manager and Ron McClary, Terminals Maintenance Supervisor. The hazardous liquid pipeline and terminal breakout tanks were constructed and installed from 1953 to 1996. The earliest tanks were installed in 1951,2 tanks installed in 1977 and two in 1996. The three pipelines cross Washington State Highway 12 South and connect to Chevron Pipe Line Company on Sacajawea Park Road in Pasco, WA. The approximately length of each line is 1 mile in length. The pipelines have 2 block valves per line and the MAOP is 290 psig. The pipelines operate at less than 20% of SMYS and were hydro tested when installed. There are nineteen breakout tanks that are jurisdictional to WUTC. 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: Yes, Tidewater Terminal representatives Bill Collins, Environmental Manager, Mark Davis, Terminals Operations Supervisor, Ron McClary, Terminal Maintenance Supervisor and Josh Jarman, EHS&S Specialist were contacted and provided a copy of the standard inspection form that would be used during the inspection. 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, Joe Sunsits provided a copy of WUTC's Standard Inspection Report for Hazardous Liquid Systems, form G-2 Rev 1 June 2011, and Breakout Tank Inspection Form-10 to each of the Tidewater Terminal representatives at the start of the inspection. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: Yes, Joe Subsits and David Cullom documented each response from the Tidewater representatives to the questions asked. The forms 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. Several violations or areas of concern 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, Joe Subsits and David Cullom reviewed the operator's maps on the existing pipeline and breakout tanks, test stations, rectifier locations, valves and pump station. During the field inspection, observed Tidewater personnel taking pipe to soil readings at each test station and rectifier location. No low readings were noted during the field inspection. Minor atmospheric corrosion was found at the interconnection pipelines with Chevron Pipe Line Company on Sacajawea Park Road in Pasco, WA. 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 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Washington Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Page: 14

Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Joe Subsits and David Cullom conducted a Standard Inspection using WUTC's Standard Report for Intrastate Hazardous Liquid Systems Procedures and Plan Review, Form G-2 and Breakout Tank Inspection Form -10. 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 2 2 b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities d. Other (Please Comment) SLR Notes: Joe Subsits and David Cullom werer observed reviewing the operations and maintenance records and drug and alcohol procedures for compliance with federal and state regulations. On the second day, observed the field inspection of the pipeline connected to Chevron, pipe-to-soil readings, pump station, and breakout tank field verification. The final records review portion or exit interview with the operator was scheduled to be conducted the next day after the field observation. 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 2 2 SLR Notes: transported by pipelines. Yes, Joe Subsits and David Cullom demonstrated a good working knowledge of the safety rules and regulations pertaining to hazardous liquid products 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: Washington UTC rules. Yes, Joe Subsits reviewed with the operator representatives at the end of the day areas of concern or potential violatons of the pipeline safety regulations or 10 Durin
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 60784