The Railroad Commission of Texas sent a response to questions from ​The Dallas
Morning News. ​Here are excerpts from that response.
On safety violations and enforcement:
Protection of public safety is the Railroad Commission’s highest priority. Pipeline operators are
required to build and operate their pipelines in compliance with federal safety standards set by
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and enforced by the RRC. Fines are
just one enforcement mechanism RRC uses.
When violations are found, the Commission orders an operator to take all necessary corrective
actions to ensure safe operation and compliance with RRC rules. When fines or administrative
penalties are assessed, they must follow the Commission’s RULE §8.135 Penalty Guidelines for
Pipeline Safety Violations, which states:
“Encouraging operators to take appropriate voluntary corrective and future protective actions
once a violation has occurred is an effective component of the enforcement process.
Deterrence of violations through penalty assessments is also a necessary and effective
component of the enforcement process.”
The entire rule, and penalty guidelines can be found at the link below:
http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc
=&p_plo c=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=16&pt=1&ch=8&rl=135
Since 2008, the Commission has conducted a total of 3,585 inspection-evaluations of Atmos’
natural gas distribution systems. Out of the total 3,585 evaluations, 2,410 found no violations.
Of the remaining 1,175 evaluations, 2,091 safety rule violations were cited.

 On inspections and enforcement:
The Railroad Commission has in place a rigorous inspection and enforcement program
within the Pipeline Safety department to identify any violations such as those you reference.
The fact (Atmos) was cited for those violations is clear evidence RRC inspectors are identifying
violations and the operator is being made to come into compliance with our rules. For your
background, low cathodic protection readings found in inspections do not mean a pipeline is
actually corroding.
Cathodic protection is the process used to place an electrical current on a pipeline to prevent or
minimize corrosion.

 On compression coupling violation citations:
RRC Rule 8.208 required operators to replace specific types of compression couplings, not all
compression couplings. Each operator was required to complete removal and replacement of
such compression couplings by Nov. 30, 2009. Atmos met this requirement.
See Rule 8.208 at the link below for more details on the specific compression couplings that
required replacement:
http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc
=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=16&pt=1&ch=8&rl=208
Additionally, if an operator identifies the specific type of compression couplings cited in the
rule, during repairs or maintenance on their systems, Rule 8.208 requires operators to record
and report to the Commission every six months when they replace or repair them.
From Rule 8.208: (j) Beginning November 1, 2008, and every six months thereafter until all
compression couplings on the operator's system subject to subsection (f) of this section have
been removed and replaced, each operator shall file with the division a progress report
showing the number of service riser installations checked, the condition of the coupling, and
the total number of compression couplings replaced for that reporting period.

 On enforcement actions it has taken or not taken:
To be clear, rulemaking for compression couplings and pipelines is a completely separate
process from individual enforcement cases. In the rulemaking process, all stakeholders are
allowed to comment on pending rules.
In individual enforcement cases, RRC enforcement decisions are based on evidence and
information that is collected and evaluated during the investigative process. Once violations are
cited in an enforcement docket, operators are permitted due process in contesting a fine.

 On whether its investigations are independent:
Yes, RRC investigations are independent. As you know, it is not uncommon in an incident for
the initial suspected cause to change or evolve as facts, evidence and information is collected
and assessed through the investigative process.
This necessarily includes information and evidence sought from an operator, such as Atmos,
when they are involved in an incident. Commission inspectors conduct their investigations
independently and their findings are based upon collection of evidence, facts and information
that have relevance to the incident in question.
RRC investigations involve collecting evidence, facts and information, some of which would
necessarily come from the operator involved and would be given close scrutiny. Whatever
findings are made, are made after a thoughtful, independent analysis and evaluation of all
evidence and information collected in an investigation.

 On adding language to enforcement decisions suggested by gas companies’ lawyers:
This is standard language used in Commission agreed enforcement orders. Through
settlement negotiations, parties may enter into an agreed settlement and consent order. In
these orders, the template language states, “Respondent makes no admission of any alleged
pipeline safety violations but wishes to address the Commission’s concerns under the terms of
this order.”

 On cases where gas explosions injured people but the commission did not fine Atmos:
All operators under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission are expected to comply
with applicable rules. Those that do not are required to achieve compliance and face possible
fines. The Railroad Commission has fined, and will continue to fine any operator, when
determined appropriate for violations of RRC rules.
As stated in the response to your first question, the RRC has specific guidelines to follow when a
fine is assessed; Please see RULE §8.135 Penalty Guidelines for Pipeline Safety Violations which
states in part: “Encouraging operators to take appropriate voluntary corrective and future
protective actions once a violation has occurred is an effective component of the enforcement
process. Deterrence of violations through penalty assessments is also a necessary and effective
component of the enforcement process.”
The entire rule and penalty guidelines can be found at the link below:
http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc
=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=16&pt=1&ch=8&rl=135

 On potential conflicts of interest and its revolving door policy:
The Commission follows all state and federal employment laws, as well as the agency’s
Revolving Door Policy, found below:
Revolving Door Policy
As outlined in Texas Government Code 572, to safeguard Commission independence, and to
avoid the appearance of impropriety, the Commission requires former Commission officers and
former employees (and current employees to the extent that they interact or communicate
with former officers and employees) to adhere to the following policies and procedures
regarding prohibited communications, representation, and compensation:
Two-Year Prohibition
This is applicable to former commissioners and executive directors. For two years after a
commissioner or executive director leaves the Commission, he or she may not appear before
the Commission or otherwise communicate with current commissioners, Commission officers
or employees with the intent to influence Commission action on behalf of any person and in
connection with any matter.
This restriction applies even if the former commissioner or executive director is communicating
on his or her own behalf with the intent to influence Commission action, subject to any
constitutional due process right to be heard by the Commission.
In order to minimize any appearance of impropriety, all former commissioners and former
executive directors of the Commission must direct all communications with the Commission to
the Commission’s Office of General Counsel. If contacted directly, current Commission
employees shall immediately refer the former commissioner or former executive director to the
Office of General Counsel. Furthermore, the current employee shall report the details of any
communication made to them by the former commissioner or former executive director to the
Office of General Counsel. Failure on the part of current Commission employees to comply with
these procedures will be documented, and may result in disciplinary action, up to and including
termination of employment.

 On transparency:
Virtually all information and data collected and maintained by the Commission is public
record and available to anyone who wishes to access it. We continue to modernize our IT
systems to make more of this information available in digital or electronic format, so access by
the public will be more convenient.
Additionally, The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration maintains an extensive public pipeline incident database which can be found at
the link below:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/working-phmsa/state-programs/incident-information