Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA alogb-2023-ungs-program-evaluation
2023 AL UNGS Program Evaluation - alogb-2023-ungs-program-evaluation (Alabama; Underground Natural Gas Storage State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA alogb-2023-ungs-program-evaluation
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 1Official PDFPHMSA UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE (UNGS) Alabama OGB PROGRAM EVALUATION – CY2023 CONDUCTED 4/19-26/2024 A – PROGRESS REPORT AND PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION REVIEW 9 of 9 B – PROGRAM INSPECTION PROCEDURES 9 of 9 (14) C – PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 27 of 29 (34) D – COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES 7 of 8 (21) E – INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS 0 of 2 (13) F – DAMAGE PREVENTION 2 of 4 G – FIELD INSPECTIONS 12 of 12 H - 60106 AGREEMENT STATE (if applicable) 3 of 3 (6) TOTAL PROGRAM EVALUATION POINTS 69 of 76 (113)#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 2PHMSA UNGS STATE PROGRAM EVALUATION – CY2022 A – PROGRESS REPORT AND PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION REVIEW THIS SECTION ANALYZES ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT SCORE 1 Accuracy of Jurisdictional Authority and Operator/Inspection Units Data – Progress Report Attachment 1 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy – Progress Report Attachment 2 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 3 Accuracy verification of Operators and Operators Inspection Units in State – Progress Report Attachment 3 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 4 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities – Progress Report Attachment 5 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 5 Were UNGS program files well-organized and accessible? - Progress Report Attachment 6 (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 2 6 Was employee listing and completed training accurate and complete? – Progress Report Attachment 7 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 7 Verification of Part 192 and 199 Rules and Amendments – Progress Report Attachment 8 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. 1 8 List of Planned Performance - Did State describe accomplishments on Progress Report in detail – Progress Report Attachment 10 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 9 General Comments: Charles E. (Ward) Pearson, Chairman, State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, 420 Hackberry Lane, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401. UNGS PROGRESS REPORT REVIEW score is 40 of 50, a 6 pt deduction due to being a 60106 partner and a 4 pt deduction due the highest percentage of inspectors being in categories I, II. III. No incidents reported in 2020-2023. Project activity in 2024 will increase as the UNGS Standard Inspection is scheduled for April, 2024. Part A scored 9 of 9 points 9#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 3B – PROGRAM INSPECTION PROCEDURES Does State Inspection Plan include procedures that address the following elements? (See Guidelines Section 5.1) 1 Does State have written inspection procedures? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 2 Standard Inspections Do Standard Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that insure consistency for inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Review of Procedures, Records, or Field Items to complete a PHMSA UNGS IA Question Set (RESERVOIR or CAVERN) – 2019.12.31) • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 3 Integrity Management Inspections • Do Integrity Management Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that insure consistency for inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Integrity Testing and Maintenance: Observing Integrity Testing (Tubing, Casing, Cement), reservoir integrity monitoring, & FLIR Camera inspections.) • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 4 Design, Testing, and Construction Inspections Do Design, Testing, and Construction Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that insure consistency for Inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Review of procedures, records, and field activities to complete PHMSA UNGS IA Question Set (RESERVOIR or CAVERN CONSTRUCTION) – 2019.12.31. Inspection activities for well design, drilling and completion activities, well workover, reservoir maintenance/repair activities, and abandonment (Plugging and cementing), temporary abandonment, and restoration.) • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 2 2 2 1#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 45 Wellhead Inspections Do Wellhead Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that insure consistency for Inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 6 Drug and Alcohol Inspections Do Drug and Alcohol Inspection procedures give guidance to State inspectors that insure consistency for Inspections conducted by the State? The following elements should be addressed at a minimum. (Using AI to complete the federal Comprehensive Drug and Alcohol program (Form 3.1.11). Includes time conducting joint inspections with other agencies for this type of inspection.) • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 7 Does inspection plan address inspection priorities of each inspection unit, based on the following elements? • Length of time since last inspection (Within five-year interval per inspection unit) • Operating history of operator/unit and/or location (includes leakage, incident, Integrity Testing, and compliance activities) • Type of activity being undertaken by operators in inspection units (i.e. construction) • Locations of operator’s inspection units being inspected - (Geographic area, Population Density, etc.) • Process to identify high-risk inspection units considering integrity threats Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (Yes= 5 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-4 points) Comments: NA. does not apply, there is only one operator and one Unit. 8 General Comments: Part B scored 9 of 9 points. Question #7 was NA. 1 1 NA 9#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 5C – PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 1 Was ratio of Total Inspection Person-Days to Total Person-Days acceptable? (Chapter 4.2) A = Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2) B = Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the program (220 x Number of Inspection person years from Attachment 7) Ratio = A/B If Ratio >= .38 then score = 5 points. If Ratio < .38 then score = 0 points. (Yes= 5 points, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. 13 inspection days, 220*.06=13 Inspector person days, 13/13=1.0 >.38, okay. 5 2 Has each Inspector and Program Manager fulfilled the TQ Training Requirements? (See Guidelines Appendix C for requirements and Chapter 4.3.1) (Yes= 5 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-4) Comments: Yes. 5 3 Does State use the PHMSA Inspection Assistant (IA) program to document inspections? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 2 4 Did records and discussions with Program Manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? Chapter 4.1,8.1 (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NI, 1 of 2 points. Butch self-reported that he wants more time on task before he claims full competency with the UNGS partnership. 1 5 Did State respond to PHMSA's Evaluation Letter within 60 days and correct or address any noted deficiencies? Chapter 8.1 (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NI, 1 of 2 points. 9/13 to 11/16; exceeded the 60-day requirement by 4 days. 1 6 Did State inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in their written procedures? Chapter 5.1 (Yes= 5 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-4 points) Comments: Yes. 5 7 Did State Inspection form(s) cover all applicable code requirements addressed on Federal Inspection form(s)? Chapter 5.1 (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NA. A full UNGS Inspection was not done in 2020-2023. Discussed that AL OGB will use the Federal forms in IA. NA 8 Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 2 9 Has the State reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 2#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 610 11 12 13 14 15 16 Is the State verifying operators are conducting drug and alcohol tests required by regulations? This should include verifying positive tests are responded to in accordance with program. 49 CFR 199 (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI= 1 point) Comments: Yes. 2 Does the State have a mechanism for communicating with stakeholders regarding the inspection and enforcement program? (This should include making enforcement cases available to public). (Yes= 1 points, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 Did State execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports (SRCR)? Chapter 6.3 (Yes= 1 points, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA. there were no SRCs in 2023, or for the life of the partnership. NA Did the State participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from PHMSA? (Yes= 1 points, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 Did the State forward any potential waivers/special permits to PHMSA for review prior to issuing them to operators? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA. No waivers/special permits were requested concerning UNGS. NA If the State has issued any waivers/special permits for any operator, has the State verified conditions of those waivers/special permits are being met? This should include having the operator amend procedures where appropriate. (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA. No waivers/special permits were requested concerning UNGS. NA General Comments: Part C scored 27 of 29 points. Four questions were NA: #4 & #5 were NI. 27#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 7D – COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES 1 Does the State have written procedures to identify steps to be taken from the discovery to resolution of a probable violation? Chapter 5.1 • Procedures to notify an operator (company officer) when a noncompliance is identified (60105 States) • Procedures to routinely review progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns • Procedures regarding closing outstanding probable violations (Yes= 4 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-3 points) Comments: Yes. 2 Did the State follow compliance procedures (from discovery to resolution) and adequately document all probable violations, including what resolution or further course of action is needed to gain compliance? Chapter 5.1 • Were compliance actions sent to company officer or manager/board member if municipal/government system (60105 States)? • Document probable violations • Resolve probable violations • Routinely review progress of probable violations (Yes= 4 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-3 points) Comments: NA. only routine site inspections were performed in 2023. No violations found. Established practices were followed. 3 Did State within 30 days of the end of an inspection conduct a post-inspection briefing with the owner or operator of the UNGS facility inspected outlining any concerns identified during the inspection? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NI 1 of 2 points. A verbal post-inspection briefing was given for the wellhead inspections but was not noted in the file or IA. 4 Did State within 90 days, to the extent practicable, provide the owner or operator with written preliminary findings of the inspection? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. 5 Did the State issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered (60105 States)? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NA. AL OGB is a 60106 Agreement Partner. 6 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary (60105 States). (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points) Comments: NA. AL OGB is a 60106 Agreement Partner. 4 NA 1 2 NA NA#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 87 Is the Program Manager familiar with State process for imposing civil penalties (60105 States)? (describe any actions taken) (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NA. 60106 program. The AL OGB does have a process and the Program Manager is familiar with it. NA 8 Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations, violations which can’t be corrected by other means, or violations resulting in incidents (60105 States)? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NA. 60106 program. The AL OGB does have a process and the Program Manager is familiar with it. NA 9 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for safety violations (60105 States)? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI= .5 point) Comments: NA. 60106 program. The AL OGB does have a process and the Program Manager is familiar with it. NA 10 General Comments: Part D scored 7 of 8 points. 6 questions were NA, 2,5,6,7,8 & 9. 7#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 9E – INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS 1 Does the State have written procedures to address State actions in the event of an incident? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: No, 0 of 2 points. AL OGB practices need to be written into the UNGS Procedures, and Accident Investigation agreements need to be written/referenced into the UNGS Procedures. 2 Does State have adequate mechanism to receive and respond to operator reports of incidents, including after-hours reports? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NA. No UNGS incidents in 2020-23. 3 Did the State keep adequate records of Incident notifications received? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: NA. No UNGS incidents in 2020-23. 4 If onsite investigation was not made, did State obtain sufficient information from the operator and/or by other means to determine the facts to support the decision to not go on-site? Chapter 6 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI= .5 point) Comments: NA, No UNGS incidents in 2020-23. 5 Were all incidents investigated, thoroughly documented, and with conclusions and recommendations? • Observations and document review • Contributing Factors • Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate (Yes= 3 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-2 points) Comments: NA, No UNGS incidents in 2020-23. 6 Did the State initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident investigation? (60106 States forward violations to PHMSA) (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: NA, No UNGS incidents in 2020-23. 7 Did the State assist the Region Office or Accident Investigation Division (AID) by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator incident reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate report data from operators concerning incidents and investigate discrepancies) Chapter 6 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI= .5 point) Comments: NA. No PHMSA requests in 2020-23. 8 Does State share lessons learned from incidents with PHMSA? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: NA. No UNGS incidents in 2020-23. 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 109 General Comments: Part E scored 0 of 2 points. Question #1 was ‘No’. 7 Questions, #2-8, were NA. 0#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 11F – DAMAGE PREVENTION 1 Did the State inspector verify UNGS operators are following their written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? (API 1171 Section 11.10 Public Awareness and Damage Prevention) (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: No, 0 of 2 point. Damage prevention was not addressed in 2020-23. Discussed creating a MOU with AL PSC for Damage prevention inspections. This needs to be included in the UNGS Procedures. This is a multiyear problem. 2 Did the State encourage and promote practices for reducing damages to all underground facilities to its regulated companies? (Common Ground Alliance Best Practices, support excavation damage prevention legislation, etc.) (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: Yes. 3 General Comments: Part F scored 2 of 4 points. 0 2 2#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 12G – FIELD INSPECTIONS 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Comments: Bay Gas Storage Company, LLC, OPID 30026, Butch Gregory, Field Agent/Program Manager, 205-247-3575; Bay Gas Storage Facility, 787 Industrial Rd, McIntosh, AL 36553; 4/24- 25/24; Patrick Gaume, UNGS State Liaison, PHMSA. 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. 1 3 Did the inspector use an appropriate inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: Yes. 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: Yes. 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. 1 6 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the State Program Evaluation? • Procedures • Records • Field Activities/Facilities • Other (please comment) (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: Yes. 2 7 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the UNGS safety program and regulations? (Evaluator will document reasons if unacceptable) (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: Yes. 2 8 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) (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. 1#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 139 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. Two pending items were mentioned that were then addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. No violations found. 10 General Comments: • What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector performed) • Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or State inspector practices) • Other Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) Part G scored 12 of 12 points. 1 12#
AL UNGS Program Evaluation, 2023, page 14H - 60106 AGREEMENT STATE (if applicable) 1 Did the State use the current federal inspection form(s)? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Comments: Yes. 1 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with State inspection plan? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 3 Were all probable violations identified by State referred to PHMSA for compliance action? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA. No violations were found but procedures are in place. NA 4 Did the State immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA. No imminent hazards have occurred but procedures are in place. NA 5 Did the State give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA, No probable violations were found but procedures are in place. NA 6 Did the State initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 1 7 General Comments: Part H scored 3 of 3 points. Questions 3, 4, & 5 were NA. 3#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.