1 / 10

Integrity Management

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.

alvin-riley
Télécharger la présentation

Integrity Management

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. Integrity Management Small Operator Inspections Louisiana Department of Natural Resources/Pipeline Safety Seminar August 14, 2003

  2. Small Liquid Operator Work Group • Why it was formed • Who’s involved • Implementation approach • Implementation timeframes • Expected outcomes

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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).

  10. 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

More Related