100 likes | 239 Views
Integrity Management. Small Operator Inspections Louisiana Department of Natural Resources/Pipeline Safety Seminar August 14, 2003. Small Liquid Operator Work Group. Why it was formed Who’s involved Implementation approach Implementation timeframes Expected outcomes. Why it was formed.
E N D
Integrity Management Small Operator Inspections Louisiana Department of Natural Resources/Pipeline Safety Seminar August 14, 2003
Small Liquid Operator Work Group • Why it was formed • Who’s involved • Implementation approach • Implementation timeframes • Expected outcomes
Why it was formed • Established to develop an inspection approach applicable to smaller hazardous liquid operators. • To design an approach that can be used by state and federal inspectors • Establish a model that can be utilized for gas IM
The Participants • Comprised mostly of State inspectors • Minimal OPS/TSI • Contract SupportChuck McDonald, CA SFMDana Arabie, LA DNRPat Raichel, NY DPSTommy Lancaster, AL PSCRandy Vaughn, TX RRCHossein Monfared, OPS WesternBruce Hansen, OPS HQDeWitt Burdeaux, TSICycla Support
Key Workgroup Activities • Identify “small” operators • Utilize known information about these operators to; • support inspection scheduling • identify areas of inspection focus • Identify inspection resource allocations • Select operators across a broad spectrum for “pilot” inspections to test the process
Key Workgroup Activities • Evaluate IM inspection process and adjust for small operators • Conduct “pilot” inspections for liquid program states • Develop protocol based small operator inspection process • Develop general IM training and OJT process
Inspection Development Timeframes • “Pilots” conducted for four states – five small operators • Development meeting last week of August • Continue inspections/OJT through mid-2004. • Hand-off inspections to States and regions when they are assured a quality inspection process has been developed
Expected Outcomes • A flexible inspection process and methods that support consistent application of a protocol-based approach. • Maximized coordination between federal and state agencies to avoid duplication of effort and promote efficient use of inspection resources.
Expected Outcomes • An inspection approach which adjusts the level of resource expended for the inspection to the risk of operations, complexity of facilities and organization • Develop and communicate a process that makes sense to various constituencies (e.g., state program managers and commissioners, OPS management, Congress, industry, and the public).
Expected Outcomes • Maximize training opportunities for state and federal inspectors. • An inspection approach that will be applicable for inspection of small natural gas operators when the gas IM rule becomes final