1 / 20

Segment Identification Inspections What did OPS Learn?

Segment Identification Inspections What did OPS Learn?. Presentation Topics. Review Segment Identification Inspection Approach Summarize Inspection Results Segment Identification IM Program and Baseline Assessment Plan Development Communicate OPS Conclusions.

zia-velasquez
Download Presentation

Segment Identification Inspections What did OPS Learn?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Segment Identification InspectionsWhat did OPS Learn?

  2. Presentation Topics • Review Segment Identification Inspection Approach • Summarize Inspection Results • Segment Identification • IM Program and Baseline Assessment Plan Development • Communicate OPS Conclusions

  3. IM Inspection Approach Overview • Initial Segment Identification and Completeness Check • Comprehensive Baseline Assessment Plan and IM Framework Review • On-going Program Implementation Inspections

  4. Segment Identification and Completeness Check: Objectives • Confirm Segments Affecting HCAs have been Identified (Required by 12/31/01) • Assure Baseline Assessment Plans and IM Frameworks have Essential Elements • Identify Potential Noteworthy Practices • Support Prioritization of Comprehensive Inspections

  5. Segment Identification Inspection Approach • Inspect all Large Operators in 3 months • Inspection Duration - Approximately 1-2 Days • Multiple, Multi-Region Teams • OPS Inspectors Only • Texas RRC Inspectors Observed Several Texas Operator Inspections • Periodic Process Checks to Assure Consistency

  6. Major Components of Segment Identification Inspection • Review Operator Approach and Technical Justification for Identifying Segments • Review Small Sample of Analyses to Determine Segment Boundaries • Compare Location of Operator Segments to HCAs from NPMS • Perform Completeness Check on Baseline Assessment Plan and IM Framework

  7. Accomplishments • 40 Hazardous Liquid Operators • Operating ~ 159,000 miles of pipe • Summary Reports Prepared and (after approval) Provided to Operator to Document Inspector Feedback • Created and Implemented a Web-based Information System for Inspection Records

  8. Segment Identification Results • Percentage of Operator Mileage Identified that “Could Affect” HCAs = 39% • Median = 44% • Maximum = 100% • Minimum = 0%

  9. “Could Affect” Mileage

  10. Segment Identification:Effect of Operator Size

  11. Common Segment Identification Problems • Inadequately Justified “Buffer Zones” • Topography not Considered • Stream/Waterway Transport to HCAs not Considered • No Consideration of HVL Vapor Properties • No Consideration of HVL Impacts on USAs • No Segment Identification for Subsidiaries or Joint venture Pipelines

  12. Common Segment Identification Problems • No Segment Identification for Idle Lines • No Identification of Segments affecting USAs in States without USA Maps on NPMS (as of 12/31/01) • 50% of Operators faced this problem • Issue is likely to be corrected as most all state maps are now complete.

  13. Segment Identification Enforcement • OPS Demonstrated Commitment to Enforcement of the Integrity Management Rule

  14. Integrity Management Program Observations • Most operators Understand Rule Programmatic Requirements • Formalization of Program Needs Work • Implementing procedures and guidance • Assigned responsibilities • Documentation requirements • Many operators Plan more Technically Robust Segment Identification Determinations

  15. Baseline Assessment Plan Observations • Integrity Assessment Plans Progressing Well • Operators Strongly Prefer In-line Inspection over Pressure Testing • Operators Pigging Far More Miles than Affects HCAs. • Many are applying HCA repair criteria system-wide (though not with rule’s time constraints)

  16. Baseline Assessment Plan Observations • Weaknesses Observed in Some Operator Plans: • Basis for Segment Priorities not Readily Evident • Assessment Method Selection Criteria not documented

  17. What’s Next • Preparing for Comprehensive IM Inspections • Protocols and Guidance • Training for Federal and State Inspectors • Industry Workshop – July 23 & 24 • Inspections Begin - August 2002

  18. Segment Identification Inspection Conclusions • Operators have a Significantly Improved Understanding of Where HCAs are and Where Their Pipelines can Impact These Areas • Significant Portion of Liquid Pipelines can Impact HCAs (39%), and Even More Mileage will be Assessed as a Result of this Rule • Most Operators Understand the Importance of Developing an Integrity Management Program, but Fully Mature Programs will Take Time to Develop

  19. Segment Identification Inspection Conclusions • OPS Successfully Determined Operator Compliance with Segment Identification Requirement • Inspections began immediately after 12/31/01 deadline and were completed in 3 months • OPS Successfully Implemented a Programmatic Approach to Inspect for Operator Compliance (versus a yes/no checklist) • Measures to achieve consistency were effective • Operator Interactions were Generally Cooperative with Open Communication • OPS provided operators with significant and well-received feedback on areas for improvement

  20. Segment Identification Inspection Conclusions • Vigorous Enforcement is Being Pursued • While most operators appear headed toward sound program development, there are some areas that need to be improved. • NOAs are being used to communicate areas where improvement is needed. These do not necessarily represent a deterioration in the operator’s IM program as a whole. • Operators not taking IM requirements seriously face NOPV/Compliance Orders and Civil Penalties

More Related