Inspectionhistorical
PHMSA ok2010hlprogramevaluation
2010 OK HL Program Evaluation - ok2010hlprogramevaluation (Oklahoma; Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation)
Current as of source date Government source
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ok2010hlprogramevaluation
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 1Official PDF1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation for Oklahoma Corporation Commission Document Legend PART: O -- Representative Date and Title Information A -- General Program Qualifications B -- Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance C -- Interstate Agent States D -- Accident Investigations E -- Damage Prevention Initiatives F -- Field Inspection G -- PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan H -- Miscellaneous I -- Program Initiatives DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 1#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 22010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation -- CY 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Agency: Oklahoma Rating: Agency Status: Date of Visit: 07/18/2011 - 07/22/2011 Agency Representative: Dennis Fothergill, Pipeline Safety Manager PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume Commission Chairman to whom follow up letter is to be sent: Name/Title: Ms. Dana Murphy, Chairman Agency: Oklahoma Corporation Commission Address: 2101 N. Lincoln Blvd. City/State/Zip: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 60105(a): Yes 60106(a): No Interstate Agent: No INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this evaluation in accordance with the Procedures for Evaluating State Pipeline Safety Program. The evaluation should generally reflect state program performance during CY 2010 (not the status of performance at the time of the evaluation). All items for which criteria have not been established should be answered based on the PHMSA representative's judgment. A deficiency in any one part of a multiple part question should be scored as needs improvement. Determine the answer to the question then select the appropriate point value. If a state receives less then the maximum points, include a brief explanation in the space provided for general comments/regional observations. If a question is not applicable to a state, select NA. Please ensure all responses are COMPLETE and ACCURATE, and OBJECTIVELY reflect state program performance. Increasing emphasis is being placed on performance. This evaluation together with selected factors reported in the state's annual certification/agreement attachments provide the basis for determining the state's pipeline safety grant allocation. Field Inspection (PART F): The field inspection form used will allow different areas of emphasis to be considered for each question. Question 13 is provided for scoring field observation areas. In completing PART F, the PHMSA representative should include a written summary which thoroughly documents the inspection. Scoring Summary PARTS Possible Points Points Scored A General Program Qualifications 26 26 B Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/Performance 25 25 C Interstate Agent States 0 0 D Accident Investigations 7 7 E Damage Prevention Initiatives 9 9 F Field Inspection 12 12 G PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan 9.5 9 H Miscellaneous 3 3 I Program Initiatives 9 9 TOTALS 100.5 100 State Rating................................................................................................................................................... 99.5 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 2#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 3PART A - General Program Qualifications Points(MAX) Score 8 8 1 Did the state submit complete and accurate information on the attachments to its most current 60105(a) Certification/60106 (a) Agreement? (NOTE: PHMSA Representative to verify certification/agreement attachments by reviewing appropriate state documentation. Score a deficiency in any one area as "needs improvement". Attachment numbers appear in parenthesis) Previous Question A.1, Items a-h worth 1 point each Yes = 8 No = 0 Needs Minor Improvement = 3-7 Needs Major Improvement = 2 a. State Jurisdiction and agent status over Hazardous Liquid and CO2 facilities (1) b. Total state inspection activity (2) c. Hazardous Liquid facilities subject to state safety jurisdiction (3) d. Hazardous Liquid pipeline incidents (4) e. State compliance actions (5) f. State record maintenance and reporting (6) g. State employees directly involved in the Hazardous Liquid pipeline safety program (7) h. State compliance with Federal requirements (8) SLR Notes: A.1 YES. 8 of 8 points. A--- yes, B---OK inspects not by Operator, but by Unit &/or System. A Unit can have between one and forty-two Systems. The Unit is where the records are kept. A System is a geographical group of pipe or distribution lines that is a sub-part of the Unit. State policy is to inspect every System every 2-5 years. As a practical matter, a Unit may be visited every year as a result of various Systems in the Unit being inspected. C-----the Operator IDs are missing on Attachment 3, Warning only as OPID is not specified as required in Guidelines 2.5.3. Note for Carrie Winslow: The opid are present in the DRAFT of Attachment 3 , but are absent in the FINAL printed version. Please change FedStar. D---Yes. E---Yes; In 2010 NOAs were considered but not adopted as a practice, (it is in the scope of the regulations but not used). Since 1987, the Policy has been that the only tool available is notices of non-compliance. F---Records are kept by paper records, in-house electronic records, and or FedStar. G---Yes. H---Yes. 2 Did the state have an adequate mechanism to receive operator reporting of incidents to ensure state compliance with 60105(a) Certification/60106(a) Agreement requirements (accident criteria as referenced in 195.50? - Mechanism should include receiving "after hours" reports) (Chapter 6) Previous Question A.2 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: A.2. OCC meets the Federal reporting requirements. 3 Has the state held a pipeline safety T & Q seminar(s) in the last 3 years? (NOTE: Indicate date of last seminar or if state requested seminar, but T&Q could not provide, indicate date of state request for seminar. Seminars must be held at least once every 3 calendar years.) (Chapter 8.5) Previous Question A.5 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.3. Yes, in Nov 6-9, 2007, & in May 12-15, 2009, scheduled for Nov 14-18, 2011. Practice is to schedule every 18 months or so. 2 2 4 Were pipeline safety program files well-organized and accessible?(NOTE: This also includes electronic files) (Chapter 5) Previous Question A.6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.4. Yes, the paper files are in the Pipeline Section Office area. 1 1 5 Did state records and discussions with the state pipeline safety program manager indicate adequate knowledge of PHMSA program and regulations? (Chapter 4.1, Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.7 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvment = 1 SLR Notes: A.5. Yes, The Program Managers show a professional knowledge of the regulations. 2 2 6 Did the state respond in writing within 60 days to the requested items in the Chairman's letter following the Region's last program evaluation? (No response is necessary if no items are requested in letter and mark "Yes") (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.9 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: A.6. Yes, The Chairman letter was sent within 7 days of receipt. It addressed State Damage Prevention Statutes, Staffing concerns, Incident and accident reporting, and Effectiveness of State's Damage Prevention Efforts. DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 3#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 47 What actions, if necessary, did the State initiate as a result of issues raised in the Chairperson's letter from the 1 1 previous year? Did actions correct or address deficiencies from previous year's evaluation? (Chapter 8.1) Previous Question A.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: A.7. Mostly, 1 pt. Civil penalties for excavation damage did not become law but efforts are continuing in this area. Hired two new employees in 4th qtr 2010. A job posting is current effective 7/7/11. When the posting is filled, then staffing will be at 100%. One additional position has been requested and approved; it will be posted in 1st qtr, 2012. Revised procedures have been implemented to minimize the under-reporting of incidents or accidents. The OCC is working with Oklahoma One-Call to improve data gathering for the purpose of measuring the effectiveness of operator's Damage Prevention Programs. Personnel and Qualifications 8 Has each inspector fulfilled the 3 year T&Q training requirement? If No, has the state been granted a waiver regarding T&Q courses by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety? (NOTE: If the State has new inspectors who have not attended all T&Q courses, but are in a program which will achieve the completion of all applicable courses within 3 years of taking first course (5 years to sucessfully complete), or if a waiver has been granted by the applicable Region Director for the state, please answer yes.) (Chapter 4.4) Previous Question A.11 Yes = 3 No = 0 3 3 SLR Notes: A.8. Yes, all inspectors with 3+ years of service have passed all TSI core courses, and the new inspectors are taking courses and are scheduled for the rest. 9 Brief Description of Non-T&Q training Activities Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only For State Personnel: A.9. State- All Inspectors are HAZWOPER certified. For Operators: Operators ? 5 days per year, each inspector is required to provide training in the regulations to the operators. Have a program to strongly encourage/force distribution companies to assume operations & maintenance of customer owned sales/fuel lines. To date about 90% of the sales lines are O&M by the LDC. 38.5 days of on- site training was provided in 2010. For Non-Operator Entities/Parties, Information Dissemination, Public Meetings: Non-operator/public - nothing beyond enforcing RP 1162 to cause Operators to interface with the public. SLR Notes: A.9. State- All Inspectors are HAZWOPER certified. Operators ? 5 days per year, each inspector is required to provide training in the regulations to the operators. Have a program to strongly encourage/ force distribution companies to assume operations & maintenance of customer owned sales/fuel lines. To date about 90% of the sales lines are O&M by the LDC. 38.5 days of on-site training was provided in 2010. Non-operator/public - nothing beyond enforcing RP 1162 to cause Operators to interface with the public. 10 Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q OQ courses and Computer Based Training (CBT) before conducting OQ Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: have also been trained. A.10. Yes. John Harper ('04) & Kelly Phelps ('05) are the OQ Leads, They were trained to TSI course 299 in 04 & 05. The other inspectors with 3+ years 11 Did the lead inspectors complete all required T&Q Integrity Management (IMP) Courses/Seminars and CBT before conducting IMP Inspections? (Chapter 4.4.1) Previous Question A.14 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: course 294. A.11. Yes. IMP Leads are John Harper ('05 & '04) & Kelly Phelps ('05 & '02). They were trained in 2005 for TSI course 297 and in 2004 or 2002 for TSI 12 Was the ratio acceptable of Total inspection Person-days to Total Person-days charged to the program by state inspectors? (Region Director may modify points for just cause) (Chapter 4.3) Previous Question B.14 Yes = 5 No = 0 A. Total Inspection Person Days (Attachment 2): 143.50 B. Total Inspection Person Days Charged to the Program (220 X Inspection Person Years) (Attachment 7): 220 X 1.03 = 226.60 Ratio: A / B DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 5 5 Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 4#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 5143.50 / 226.60 = 0.63 If Ratio >= 0.38 Then Points = 5, If Ratio < 0.38 Then Points = 0 Points = 5 SLR Notes: A.12 A=143.5 person days. B=1.03 man years * 220 = 226.6 person days. A/B= .6333 .6333>.38, okay. 13 Have there been modifications or proposed changes to inspector-staffing levels? (If yes, describe) Previous Info Only Info Only Question B.13 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: A.13. Yes, staffing levels were down during 2008-2010 and were restored at the end of 2010. Staffing was at 13 through 2007. In November, 2007, an inspector resigned & that position was not replaced. Mr. Phelps changed his time from 100% supervision to 50/50 supervision/inspector to make up some of the shortfall. Effective 12/31/2009, Ted Tiger retired and staffing became 11. Effective August, 2010, Staffing was authorized to 12 (actual staff was at 10), by year end 2010 actual and authorized staff was at 12. A 13th position has been authorized and posted effective July, 2011. A 14th position will be authorized effective January, 2012. 14 Part-A General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: A.14. The OCC Pipeline Department was restored to 12 positions at the end of 2010, and will be authorized to 14 positions by January, 2012. OCC changed their enforcement procedures on 7/1/2009 to incorporate ?198 into their regulations. OCC continues to work to have its authority changed to allow the State to be more stringent than the Federal Code in certain situations. OCC has been unsuccessful so far in making needed changes to the State's Damage Prevention Law to cause inclusion of civil penalties against excavators. Total points scored for this section: 26 Total possible points for this section: 26 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 5#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 6PART B - Inspections and Compliance - Procedures/Records/ Performance Points(MAX) Score Inspection Procedures 1 Does the State have a written inspection plan to complete the following? (all types of operators) (Chapter 5.1) 6.5 6.5 Previous Question B.1 + Chapter 5 Changes Yes = 6.5 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Standard Inspections (Including LNG) (Max points = 2) b IMP Inspections (Including DIMP) (Max points = .5) c OQ Inspections (Max points = .5) d Damage Prevention (Max points = .5) e On-Site Operator Training (Max points = .5) f Construction Inspections (Max points = .5) g Incident/Accident Investigations (Max points = 1) h Compliance Follow-up (Max points = 1) Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: B.1. A---, Yes, have procedures in SOP pages 1-10. The SOP shows that Units are inspected every 2-3 years, but certain Systems in large Units may be on a 4-5 year rotation. B--- IMP plan review is on an 8 yr cycle. C--- OQ plan review is on a 10 yr cycle. D--- yes, Damage Prevention is part of the Std Insp; see SOP pg 6 of 10. E--- yes, see SOP pg 7 of 10, also see questions A.3 & A.9. F. G. & H--- These inspections will be conducted as needed and as per the SOP. 2 Did the written Procedures for selecting operators adequately address key concerns? (Chapter 5.1) Previous 2 2 Question B.2, items a-d are worth .5 point each Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 50% Deduction a Length of time since last inspection Yes No Needs Improvement b History of Operator/unit and/or location (including leakage , incident and compliance history) Yes No Needs Improvement c Type of activity being undertaken by operator (construction etc) Yes No Needs Improvement d For large operators, rotation of locations inspected Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: B.2. yes, Items a, b, c, & d are all found in the SOP pages 3-6 of 8. Inspection Performance 3 Did the state inspect all types of operators and inspection units in accordance with time intervals established in its written procedures? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question B.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: by System. B.3. Yes, Units are being inspected in accordance with the SOP. Inspections are tracked to the System level & the year and type of inspection are recorded 4 Did the state inspection form cover all applicable code requirements addressed on the Federal Inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.5 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.4. Yes, OCC uses the Federal Forms and an addendum sheet. 1 1 5 Did state complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Chapter 5.1 (3)) Previous Question B.6 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.5. YES. A Spot check of 8 inspections showed them to be complete. Reviewed IMP inspections NG-10-552, NG-10-107, & HL-10-017, OQ inspections NG-09-148, Standard inspections NG-10-087, NG-10-359, HL-10-011, & HL-10-013. 6 Did the state initiate appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition Reports? (Chapter 6.3) Previous Question B.7 Yes = .5 No = 0 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 6#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 7SLR Notes: B.6. Yes, had 2 gas & 1 haz liq. SRCR are tracked similar to any other inspection, & updates are sent to the Feds. 7 Did the state review operator procedures for determining areas of active corrosion on liquid lines in sufficient detail? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining areas of active corrosion) Previous Question B.8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.7. Yes, it is part of the standard inspection and is reviewed on a Unit by Unit level. .5 0.5 8 Did the state adequately review for compliance operator procedures for abandoning pipeline facilities and analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes? (NOTE: PHMSA representative to describe state criteria for determining compliance with abandoning pipeline facilities and analyzing pipeline accidents to determine their causes) Previous Question B.9 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.8. Yes, accident and abandonment procedures are reviewed during Standard Inspections .5 0.5 9 Is the state aware of environmentally sensitive areas traversed by or adjacent to hazardous liquid pipelines? (reference Part 195, review of NPMS) Previous Question B.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.9. Yes, Inspectors are familiar with HCAs and USAs. .5 0.5 10 Did the state review operator records of previous accidents and failures including reported third party damage 1 1 and leak response to ensure appropriate operator response as required by 195.402(c)(5)? Previous Question B.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.10. Yes, Accident investigations are placed in the Operator file, & that file is reviewed by the inspector as he prepares for an inspection. Also, the OCC Field Supervisor reviews all accidents and alerts inspectors to issues found. It is also on the Std Insp Form, and all significant accidents are followed up with on-site investigation. Compliance - 60105(a) States 11 Did the state adequately document sufficient information on probable violations? (Chapter 5.2) Previous Question B.13 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.11. Yes, the inspection reports and the NOPV are kept together as one document. 1 1 12 Does the state have written procedures to identify the steps to be taken from the discovery to the resolution of a probable violation as specified in the "Guidelines for State Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1) Previous Question C(1).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.12. Yes, in SOP, Part 3 Procedure. 1 1 13 Does the state have written procedures to notify an operator when a noncompliance is identified as specified in the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question C (1).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.13. Yes, in SOP, Part 3 Procedure, & the Department Guidelines, & the Commission Rules & Practice. 1 1 14 SLR Notes: DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Does the state have a written procedure for routinely reviewing the progress of compliance actions to prevent delays or breakdowns of the enforcement process, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? (Chapter 5.1(5)) Previous Question C(1).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 7#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 8B.14. Yes, in SOP, Part 3 Procedure, & the Department Guidelines pg 8 of 8. 15 Has the State issued compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Note : PHMSA representative 1 1 has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation) Previous Question C(1).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.15. Yes, there were 2 Haz Liquid compliance actions in 2010 & 2 in 2009. all were issued within 60 days of the inspection completion. 16 Did the state follow its written procedures for reviewing compliance actions and follow-up to determine that prompt corrective actions were taken by operators, within the time frames established by the procedures and compliance correspondence, as required by the "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program"? Previous Question C(1).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.16. Yes, the OCC follows its own procedures. 1 1 17 If compliance could not be established by other means, did state pipeline safety program staff request formal action, such as a "Show Cause Hearing" to correct pipeline safety violations? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question C(1).6 No = 0 Yes = 1 SLR Notes: B.17.Yes, the mechanism is in the SOP, sec 165:20-13-15. There were no actions in 2008, 2009, or 2010. 1 1 18 Did the state adequately document the resolution of probable violations? (Chapter 5.1 (6)) Previous Question 1 1 C(1).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.18. Yes, the NOPV & Operator response are placed in the Operator file, & if the operator response is sufficient, the case is closed by the Pipeline Section. The PV are recorded as violations, but no closure letter is generally sent to the Operator. If the Operator has contested the NOPV and gone to commissioner's court, then upon conclusion of the court, a court determination is placed in the public record, and the legal staff sends a letter of final resolution to the operator. A spot check of 8 inspections shows the records to be in compliance with the procedures. 19 Were compliance actions sent to a company officer? (manager or board member if municipal/government system) (Chapter 5.1(4)) Previous Question C(1).8 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: B.19. Yes, it was done & the mechanism is in the SOP , pg 8 of 10. .5 0.5 20 Did the compliance proceedings give reasonable due process to all parties? (check each states enforcement procedures) Previous Question C(1).9 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.20. Yes, due process was followed. 1 1 Compliance - 60106(a) States 21 Did the state use the current federal inspection form(s)? Previous Question C(2).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA, OCC is a 60105(a) program. 1 NA 22 Are results adequately documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with state inspection plan? Previous Question C(2).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA, OCC is a 60105(a) program. 1 NA DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 8#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 923 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Previous Question C(2).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA, OCC is a 60105(a) program. 24 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question C(2).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: B.21-26. NA, OCC is a 60105(a) program. 25 SLR Notes: Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question C(2).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA B.21-26. NA, OCC is a 60105(a) program. 26 SLR Notes: Did the state initially submit adequate documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question D(2).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA B.21-26. NA, OCC is a 60105(a) program. 27 Is the program manager familiar with state process for imposing civil penalties? Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations (with severity consideration) or violations resulting in incidents/accidents? (describe any actions taken) Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: B.27. Yes, Dennis knows the process for civil penalties, and the areas where he doesn't have civil penalty authority. Consideration for repeat violations is limited but for egregious and some repeat violations escalation of civil penalties are considered. Examples include both current Show Cause Hearings. 28 Part B: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: B.28. It is welcome news that you are nearly at full staff and will be authorized two additional positions by January, 2012. The heavy work load on OCC Pipeline Safety staff continued during 2010. A full performance position is expected to be 85-100 days out of office on inspections with the remainder of the 220 day man-year being spent in the office writing reports and doing follow up on issues found during those inspections. In 2010 it was observed that your staff spent 134 days out of the office on inspections which is an indication that your staff was overloaded. The PIPES ACT of 2006 makes it clear that pipeline safety involves more and more detailed inspections. Some of those additional inspections include: RP 1162, one-call, IMP, GIMP, SHRIMP, OQ, PIPES ACT (low pressure gathering), 192.8 gathering line definition, PAPEE, CRM, DIMP, etc. We appreciate your commitment for increased staffing. Total points scored for this section: 25 Total possible points for this section: 25 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 9#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 10PART C - Interstate Agent States Points(MAX) Score 1 Did the state use an inspection form that was approved by the Regional Director? Previous Question C(3).1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 2 Are results documented demonstrating inspection units were reviewed in accordance with "PHMSA directed inspection plan"? Previous Question C(3).2 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 3 Did the state submit documentation of the inspections within 60 days as stated in its latest Interstate Agent Agreement form? Previous Question C(3).3 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 4 Were any probable violations identified by state referred to PHMSA for compliance? (NOTE: PHMSA representative has discretion to delete question or adjust points, as appropriate, based on number of probable violations; any change requires written explanation.) Previous Question C(3).4 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 NA SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 5 Did the state immediately report to PHMSA conditions which may pose an imminent safety hazard to the public or to the environment? Previous Question C(3).5 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 NA SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 6 Did the state give written notice to PHMSA within 60 days of all probable violations found? Previous Question C(3).6 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 7 Did the state initially submit documentation to support compliance action by PHMSA on probable violations? Previous Question C(3).7 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. 1 NA 8 Part C: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: C.1-8. NA, not an Interstate Agent. Info Only Info Only Total points scored for this section: 0 Total possible points for this section: 0 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 10#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 11PART D - Accident Investigations Points(MAX) Score 1 Are state personnel following the procedures for Federal/State cooperation in case of an accident? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6.1) Previous Question D.1 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: NTSB. D.1. Yes, Appendix E specifies 1. Determine if safety violations occurred. 2. Determine root causes of the accident if asked by NTSB. 3. Cooperate with 2 Are state personnel familiar with the jurisdictional authority and Memorandum of Understanding between NTSB and PHMSA? (See Appendix in "Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program") (Chapter 6 ? Appendix D) Previous Question D.2 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: D.2. Yes, the MOU between NTSB and OPS is understood, and OCC fully cooperates with NTSB. .5 0.5 3 Did the state keep adequate records of accident notifications received? Previous Question D.3 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: D.3. Yes, Haz Liq accidents are investigated and placed in the files. In addition, the accidents meeting State reporting criteria are in the files. 4 If an onsite investigation of an accident was not made, did the state obtain sufficient information by other means to determine the facts and support the decision not to go on-site? Previous Question D.4 Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 1 1 SLR Notes: follow up. D.4. Yes, In 2010, all 4 Federally reportable accidents were investigated on-site. However the SOP provides for telephonic reporting and after-the-fact 5 Were investigations thorough and conclusions and recommendations documented in an acceptable manner? 2 2 Previous Question D.5, , comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Observations Yes No Needs Improvement b. Contributing factors c. Recommendations to prevent recurrences where appropriate Yes No Needs Improvement Yes No Needs Improvement SLR Notes: D.5. Yes, yes, yes, OCC uses the federal Form 11 for incident investigations. The events are documented and Appendix E is followed. 6 Did the state initiate enforcement action for violations found during any accident investigation(s)? Previous Question D.6 Variation Yes = 1 No = 0 Needs Improvement = .5 SLR Notes: D.6. Yes, the SOP dictates action similar to any other violation. 1 1 7 Did the state assist region office by taking appropriate follow-up actions related to the operator accident (and forward to PHMSA within 10 Days per 195.58) reports to ensure accuracy and final report has been received by PHMSA? (validate annual report data from operators concerning incidents/accidents and investigate discrepancies) (Chapter 6) Previous Question D.7/D.8 and A.4 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 .5 SLR Notes: that a final report is submitted. D.7 OCC is a full partner with PHMSA to ensure that accident reports are accurate & updated, and the reports are reviewed for completeness & to ensure 8 Part D: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Info Only Info Only Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 11#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 12D.8. There were no fatalities or injuries in 2010 due to reportable accidents. All 4 Federally reportable incidents were investigated on-site. Total points scored for this section: 7 Total possible points for this section: 7 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 12#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 13PART E - Damage Prevention Initiatives Points(MAX) Score 1 Has the state reviewed directional drilling/boring procedures of each pipeline operator or its contractor to determine if they include actions to protect their facilities from the dangers posed by drilling and other trench less technologies? Previous Question B.12 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 2 2 SLR Notes: question. E.1. Yes, it is addressed in standard inspections during review of line locate and one-call procedures. OCC has created an addendum sheet to address this 2 Did the state inspector check to assure the pipeline operator is following its written procedures pertaining to notification of excavation, marking, positive response and the availability and use of the one call system? New 2008 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: E.2. Yes, it is part of the Standard Inspection Forms for Form 1, Form 2, & Form 3. 2 2 3 Did the state encourage and promote the adoption of the Common Ground Alliance Best Practices document to 2 2 its regulated companies as a means of reducing damages to all underground facilities? Previous Question A.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 SLR Notes: E.3. Yes, OCC gives a One-Call & RP 1162 Seminar every 18 months in conjunction with the TSI Seminars. They also give a One-Call & RP 1162 Seminar in the annual Municipal presentations. OK requires that either one call notifications be made or that pre-engineered & certified projects be followed. 4 Has the agency or another organization within the state collected data and evaluated trends on the number of pipeline damages per 1,000 locate requests? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: E.4. Okay, OCC is focused on excavation line leaks not line hits. It is being counted and reported by Oklahoma One Call. Line locates were 3,966,025 in 2010 and Line leaks were 1684. Recommended to start capturing total count of reported line hits. Also recommended that One-Call laws be revised to specify the reporting of all line hits by operators and excavators. 5 Did the state review operators' records of accidents and failures due to excavation damage to ensure causes of failure are addressed to minimize the possibility of recurrence as required by 195.402 (c)(5)? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 2 SLR Notes: E.5. Yes, Federal incident/accident forms and DIRT are used. 6 Part E: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Info Only Info Only E.6. 49 CFR Part 198 has been adopted effective 7/1/2009. OCC continues to work on achieving the 9 elements of the 2006 PIPES ACT. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 13#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 14PART F - Field Inspection Points(MAX) Score 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Info Only = No Points Name of Operator Inspected: Hawthorn Oil Transportation, Inc. OPID 32455, Stroud/ Pecan 12" pipeline Unit Name of State Inspector(s) Observed: Vince Eitzen & Kelly Phelps Location of Inspection: 710 Richard James Avenue, Stroud, Oklahoma 74079 Date of Inspection: 4/20-22/11 Name of PHMSA Representative: Patrick Gaume SLR Notes: Hawthorn Oil Transportation, Inc. OPID 32455, Stroud/ Pecan 12" pipeline Unit Vince Eitzen & Kelly Phelps 710 Richard James Avenue, Stroud, Oklahoma 74079 4/20-22/11 Patrick Gaume Info Only Info Only 2 Was the operator or operator's representative notified and/or given the opportunity to be present during inspection? New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.2. Yes, It was scheduled and performed at Hawthorns' Stroud Office. Three Hawthorn personnel participated in the inspection. 1 1 3 Did the inspector use an acceptable inspection form/checklist and was the form/checklist used as a guide for the inspection? (New regulations shall be incorporated) Previous Question E.2 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.3. Yes, use the Federal Form 3, revision 04.06.2011 2 2 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? Previous Question E.3 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.4. yes, the Federal Form 3 was completely filled out for Procedures and Field. The inspection is continuing on for Records. 2 2 5 Did the inspector check to see if the operator had necessary equipment during inspection to conduct tasks viewed? (Maps, valve keys, half-cells, etc.) New 2008 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: checks and inspections. F.5 yes, the operator provided multi-meter, half cell, PPE, keys for locks, hand tools, and personnel who were qualified to perform CP, valves, and rectifier 6 What type of inspection(s) did the state inspector conduct during the field portion of the state evaluation? (i.e. Standard, Construction, IMP, etc) New 2008 Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: Field insp. F.6. Yes, It was a Standard inspection with OQ protocol 9. It was also scheduled to include a Drug & Alcohol Info Only Info Only 7 Did the inspector adequately review the following during the field portion of the state evaluation? (check all that apply on list) New 2008, comprehensive question worth 2 points total Yes = 2 No = 0 Needs Improvement = 1 a. Procedures b. Records c. Field Activities/Facilities DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation 2 2 Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 14#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 15d. Other (Please Comment) SLR Notes: F.7. Yes, the portion of the inspection that was witnessed included Procedures, Field Activities, and OQ Protocol 9 for CP & Valve insp. When the inspection is complete it will be a full and complete inspection. 8 Did the inspector have adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program and regulations? (Liaison will document reasons if unacceptable) Previous Question E.8 Yes = 2 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.8. Yes, Vince & Kelly showed good & adequate knowledge of the pipeline safety program goals and regulations. 2 2 9 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) Previous Question E.10 Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: F.9. Yes, it will be done but not in my hearing; One is scheduled and will comment on some slight atmospheric corrosion issues, some valves need to tagged, some pipe supports need to be adjusted, recent construction will be reviewed during records review, and some procedures modifications on: .402e2- emergency response site specific info, .422a-need to address property, .557a-need to add acquisition language, .571-need to specify NACE 6.2 or 6.3. 10 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? Previous 1 1 Question E.11 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: F.10. Yes, but not in my hearing; One is scheduled and will comment on some slight atmospheric corrosion issues, some valves need to tagged, some pipe supports need to be adjusted, recent construction will be reviewed during records review, and some procedures modifications on: .402e2-emergency response site specific info, .422a-need to address property, .557a-need to add acquisition language, .571-need to specify NACE 6.2 or 6.3. 11 What did the inspector observe in the field? (Narrative description of field observations and how inspector Info Only Info Only performed) Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: F.11. Yes, station, safety, and pipeline signage, cleanliness, site security, locks, fencing, ESD, general appearance, fire extinguisher, facilities clearly marked including, pipe, valves, pumps, controls, safety devices, etc. condition and adequacy of retention ponds, atmospheric corrosion, air soil interface, pipe and facility supports, flange and component pressure ratings, MOP, Fire equipment, block valves, CP, rectifiers, valve and rectifier security, ROW condition, pipeline markers, pipeline encroachment and damage prevention, thermal relief, pig launcher and receivers, public awareness, *228 to force sync to the nearest cell phone tower; nuts and bolts. 12 Best Practices to Share with Other States - (Field - could be from operator visited or state inspector practices) Info Only Info Only Info Only = No Points SLR Notes: F.12. *228 to force sync to the nearest cell phone tower, GETS.org to force rank cell phones to a higher priority during an emergency response. 13 Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) Info Only = No Points a. Abandonment b. Abnormal Operations c. Break-Out Tanks d. Compressor or Pump Stations e. Change in Class Location f. Casings g. Cathodic Protection h. Cast-iron Replacement i. Damage Prevention j. Deactivation k. Emergency Procedures l. Inspection of Right-of-Way m. Line Markers Info Only Info Only DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 15#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 16n. Liaison with Public Officials o. Leak Surveys p. MOP q. MAOP r. Moving Pipe s. New Construction t. Navigable Waterway Crossings u. Odorization v. Overpressure Safety Devices w. Plastic Pipe Installation x. Public Education y. Purging z. Prevention of Accidental Ignition A. Repairs B. Signs C. Tapping D. Valve Maintenance E. Vault Maintenance F. Welding G. OQ - Operator Qualification H. Compliance Follow-up I. Atmospheric Corrosion J. Other SLR Notes: F.13 Yes, items included; c, d, g, i, k, l, m, n, p, s, v, x, B, D, G, I. 14 Part F: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: F.14. Mr. Vince Eitzen & Kelly Phelps were observed conducting a standard inspection of a hazardout liquid Unit, the Hawthorn Oil Transportation, Inc. OPID 32455, Stroud/ Pecan 12" pipeline Unit. The portion of the inspection that was observed included the records, field, and an OQ Protocol 9 parts. They showed professional level knowledge of the pipeline safety program goals and regulations, and they conducted themselves cordially and professionally while performing the inspection. Total points scored for this section: 12 Total possible points for this section: 12 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 16#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 17PART G - PHMSA Initiatives - Strategic Plan Points(MAX) Score Risk base Inspections - Targeting High Risk Areas 1 Does state have process to identify high risk inspection units? Yes = 1.5 No = 0 1.5 1.5 Risk Factors (criteria) to consider may include: Miles of HCA's, Geographic area, Population Density Length of time since last inspection History of Individual Operator units (leakage, incident and compliance history, etc.) Threats - (Excavation Damage, Corrosion, Natural Forces, Other Outside Forces, Material or Welds, Equipment, Operations, Other) SLR Notes: G.1. YES, the various risk factors have been identified and written into the SOP. The database has been developed, is being used, and is being reviewed and refined for its value. Right now the value of the database is minimal to moderate. Discussion with other state program managers has started. 2 Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (see definitions in Guidelines) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.2. Yes. OCC inspection Units are consistent with Inspection Unit as defined in the Guidelines Glossary. .5 0.5 3 Does state inspection process target high risk areas? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.3. Yes, the SOP names several high risk factors to consider, and units are selected for inspection in accordance with the SOP. .5 0.5 Use of Data to Help Drive Program Priority and Inspections 4 Does state use data to analyze effectiveness of damage prevention efforts in the state? (DIRT or other data, etc) .5 0 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.4. No 0 pts, OCC has not found a way to gather data and analyze its effectiveness of damage prevention efforts in the state. This is necessary to fulfill the 9 elements of Damage Prevention. During the evaluation a discussion was made concerning using 195.402(c )(5), 195.402(d)(1)(v), 195.402(e)(9), 195.440 (i), 195.442(a), and 195.442(c )(6) specifically and .402, .440, & .442, generally as a means of reviewing line hit repairs and measuring an operator's mitigation effectiveness. 5 Has state reviewed data on Operator Annual reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: G.5. Yes, the OCC Pipeline Program Manager personally reviews current annual reports against prior year reports and contacts the Operators when there are questions over the data. Also, pipeline mileage is used for assessing user fees so it is closely monitored. 6 Has state analyzed annual report data for trends and operator issues? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: G.6. Yes, OCC reviews the Form for completeness, miles of pipe, & lost and unaccounted for gas and trends it relative to prior years, also for data accuracy into various columns. Finally the spreadsheet has 15 years of annual report data. 7 Has state reviewed data on Incident/Accident reports for accuracy? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.7. Yes, Reportable accidents are investigated relative to minimizing future events, including those due to excavation damage. .5 0.5 8 Does state do evaluation of effectiveness of program based on data? (i.e. performance measures,trends,etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 17#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 18G.8. Yes, detailed review of annual reports to determine miles, type, and age of pipe; review of incident data like the manner and type of an equipment failure and then apply the lessons learned State wide; determine the rate of removal, replacement or mitigation of higher risk pipes. 9 Did the State input all operator qualification inspection results into web based database provided by PHMSA in a timely manner upon completion of OQ inspections? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: G.9. Yes, all of the Standard and Protocol 9 OQ inspections for 2009 have been uploaded, typically within 60 days of the inspection. The focus in 2009 was to conduct Protocol 9 inspections in every Unit that had a standard inspection. There were no violations found during those Protocol 9 reviews. 10 Did the State submit their replies into the Integrity Management Database (IMDB) in response to the Operators notifications for their integrity management program? Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 NA SLR Notes: G.10. NA. For both GIMP & LIMP. In 2010 there were no replies for GIMP or LIMP 11 Have the IMP Federal Protocol forms been uploaded to the IMDB? Previous Question B.17 .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.11. Yes, all inspections for 2010 and to date 2011 have been uploaded into IMDB. In 2010 most of the uploads were Protocol A or Protocol 1 reviews. 12 Did the State use the Federal Protocols to conduct IMP Inspections? (If the State used an alternative inspection form(s) please provide information regarding alternative form(s)) Previous Question C(2).6 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.12. YES, OCC uses the federal forms and protocols for IMP and all other inspections. .5 0.5 13 Has state confirmed transmission operators have submitted information into National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) database along with any changes made after original submission? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.13. Yes. It was being done and it is now on the new Standard Inspection Form. .5 0.5 Accident/Incident Investigation Learning and Sharing Lessons Learned 14 Has state shared lessons learned from incidents/accidents? (i.e. NAPSR meetings and communications) .5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.14. Yes, OCC makes a report during the SW Region NAPSR Meeting, and responds as appropriate to email correspondence. 0.5 15 Does the State support data gathering efforts concerning accidents? (Frequency/Consequence/etc) .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: G.15. Yes, reports are received, follow-up is made, paperwork is checked, lessons learned are derived, Accident causes and regulatory compliance are determined, and site visits are usually made. Inspector duties are strongly outlined in the SOP. 16 Does state have incident/accident criteria for conducting root cause analysis? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: G.16. OCC does not have a formal Root Cause Analysis at this time. Six inspectors have taken the Root Cause class. The other inspectors are on the Root Cause class wait list. They do search for probable cause and compliance with the regulations at this time. They are also using the DIRT Form. 17 Does state conduct root cause analysis on incidents/accidents in state? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: G.17. OCC does not have a formal Root Cause Analysis at this time. Six inspectors have taken the Root Cause class. The other inspectors are on the Root Cause class wait list. They do search for probable cause and compliance with the regulations at this time. They are also using the DIRT Form. DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 18#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 1918 Has state participated on root cause analysis training? (can also be on wait list) No = 0 Yes = .5 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: G.18. YES. Six inspectors have taken the Root Cause class. The other inspectors are on the Root Cause class wait list. Transparency - Communication with Stakeholders 19 Other than pipeline safety seminar does State communicate with stakeholders? (Communicate program data, pub awareness, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: G.19. Yes, is providing a Pipeline Safety Seminar every eighteen months instead of every 3rd year, Every inspector is providing 5 individual operator training sessions per year (9 inspectors * 5 sessions/inspector = 45 sessions per year), There are also 5 to 10 small operator training seminars given around the State each year. They participate in the Okie One Call (OPAL) public awareness program, also participate with several Operators in their programs, also participate with the PRC/Pipeline Group public awareness program. They are continuing to work on the 9 elements from the 2006 PIPES ACT. 20 Does state share enforcement data with public? (Website, newsletters, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: G.20. Yes, all Operators have docket access and OCC is moving to establish a Pipeline Safety website where all finalized inspection reports, along with findings of violations, will be available to the public. Currently the Public has rights to request and receive paper and electronic records. 21 Part G: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: G.21. OCC Pipeline Group is getting its training, providing training, analyzing and acting on data, is sharing lessons learned with NAPSR, PHMSA, and industry, is uploading data to all the various databases, and working to increase its transparency. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9.5 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 19#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 20PART H - Miscellaneous Points(MAX) Score 1 What were the major accomplishments for the year being evaluated? (Describe the accomplishments, NAPSR Activities and Participation, etc.) Previous Question A.15 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: H.1. In 2010 The OCC has increased its transparency by uploading all final reports onto the OCC web site. These reports include; incident and accidents, Standard inspections, Operator Qualification inspections, Integrity Management inspections, Construction inspections, etc. Mr. Fothergill testified during several Legislative Committee Meetings in efforts to promote pipeline safety matters; specifically One-Call improvements, effective civil penalties on excavators violating the One-Call laws, and to establish that the Commission can be more stringent than the federal guidelines. OCC participated on 5 NAPSR Committees, specifically the Liaison, the Legislative, the GPTC, the Plastic Pipe ad hoc, and the OQ/QMS. Mr. Fothergill responded to all NAPSR surveys, ballots, and inquiries. OCC also supplies four man-weeks of associate staff to TQ to support Inspector training (the Welding class). OCC participates with the Oklahoma Gas Assoc (OGA) to provide lessons learned during their annual meeting. The OCC participates with two public Awareness programs, the Okla Public Awareness Liaison (OPAL) & the Okla Public Awareness (OPA), providing them with information and serving on panels during their meetings. The OCC has created a state law that requires all federally non-regulated gas gathering systems to report all incidents that meet the federal reporting criteria. 2 What legislative or program initiatives are taking place/planned in the state, past, present, and future? (Describe initiatives (i.e. damage prevention, jurisdiction/authority, compliance/administrative, etc.) A.16 Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: Act. H.2. The Pipeline Dept enforces current Federal Regulations and provides technical information to the OK Legislature to make changes as needed in State Laws. Present legislative efforts are to allow the OCC to be more stringent that the Federal Regulations, and to implement all 9 elements of the 2006 PIPES 3 Any Risk Reduction Accomplishments/Projects? (i.e. Replacement projects,bare steel,third-party damage reductions, HCA's/USA mapping, internal corrosion, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: H.3. Yes, The OCC has rules and regulations concerning transport of Haz Liq that contains H2S. .5 0.5 4 Did the state participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from NAPSR or PHMSA? 1 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: questions!! H.4. Yes, OCC works with NAPSR, TQ, NTSB, PHMSA, and is on various committees. Dennis Fothergill is on the NAPSR Committee that asks these 5 Sharing Best Practices with Other States - (General Program) Yes = .5 No = 0 .5 0.5 SLR Notes: H.5. Yes, through SW Region NAPSR, correspondence with other States, other NAPSR & PHMSA committees. A specific example is the Fisher Regulator issue, and allowed the AOGC inspector to ride along with OCC inspectors. 6 Part H: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: H.6. H.1. In 2010 The OCC has increased its transparency by uploading all final reports onto the OCC web site. These reports include; incident and accidents, Standard inspections, Operator Qualification inspections, Integrity Management inspections, Construction inspections, etc. Mr. Fothergill testified during several Legislative Committee Meetings in efforts to promote pipeline safety matters; specifically One-Call improvements, effective civil penalties on excavators violating the One-Call laws, and to establish that the Commission can be more stringent than the federal guidelines. OCC participated on 5 NAPSR Committees, specifically the Liaison, the Legislative, the GPTC, the Plastic Pipe ad hoc, and the OQ/QMS. Mr. Fothergill responded to all NAPSR surveys, ballots, and inquiries. OCC also supplies four man-weeks of associate staff to TQ to support Inspector training (the Welding class). OCC participates with the Oklahoma Gas Assoc (OGA) to provide lessons learned during their annual meeting. The OCC participates with two public Awareness programs, the Okla Public Awareness Liaison (OPAL) & the Okla Public Awareness (OPA), providing them with information and serving on panels during their meetings. The OCC has created a state law that requires all federally non-regulated gas gathering systems to report all incidents that meet the federal reporting criteria. Total points scored for this section: 3 Total possible points for this section: 3 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 20#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 21PART I - Program Initiatives Points(MAX) Score Drug and Alcohol Testing (49 CFR Part 199) 1 Has the state verified that operators have drug and alcohol testing programs? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.1. Yes, since the inception of the D&A Program, and verifies with all new Operators. 1 1 2 Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the drug and alcohol tests required by the operators program (random, post-incident, etc.) Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.2. Yes, in 2010 OCC filled out a Form 13 for every Unit that had a Standard Inspection. .5 0.5 3 Is the state verifying that any positive tests are responded to in accordance with the operator's program? .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.3. Yes, in 2010 OCC started demanding MIS data from all operators and has incorporated the MIS demand into its state regulations effective 7/1/2011. This question is asked when a positive drug test is found. Effective 7/20/2011 protocol question A.02.b from Form 3.1.11 (see page 8 of 56+-) will be used in the review of every MIS submission that shows a positive drug test. Qualification of Pipeline Personnel (49 CFR Part 195 Subpart G) 4 Has the state verified that operators have a written qualification program? Yes = 1 No = 0 SLR Notes: 1 1 I.4. Yes. All Operators have been OQ inspected and re-inspected. In 2009 Protocol 9 inspections were done on every Unit that had a Standard Inspection. 5 Has the state reviewed operator qualification programs for compliance with PHMSA rules and protocols? .5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.5. Yes, All OQ inspections were done using Federal Forms and according to Federal guidelines. All Operators came into compliance. 0.5 6 Is the state verifying that persons who perform covered tasks for the operator are qualified in accordance with the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.6. Yes, it is covered in the OQ inspections. Also Protocol 9 reviews are done every year. .5 0.5 7 Is the state verifying that persons who perform covered task for the operator are requalified at the intervals specified in the operator's program? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.7. Yes, OQ records are checked during every OQ inspection and every Protocol 9 inspection. .5 0.5 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Integrity Management (49 CFR Part 195.452) 8 Has the state verified that all operators with hazardous liquid pipelines have adopted an integrity management program (IMP)? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 1 SLR Notes: I.8. Yes, all Haz Liq Operators have been contacted. All Haz Liq Operators have either declared they have prepared a LIMP program or declared they have no USAs. Every Haz Liq Operator with an identified USA have received a full LIMP Inspection. The inspections have been uploaded into the fed database. All Haz Liq Operator Protocol 1 have been reviewed. 9 Has the state verified that in determining whether a plan is required, the operator properly applied the definition of a high consequence area? Yes = .5 No = 0 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation .5 0.5 Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 21#
OK HL Program Evaluation, 2010, page 22SLR Notes: I.9. Yes, the high consequence areas and the USA determinations have been verified during every LIMP review. 10 Has the state reviewed operator IMPs for compliance with 195.452? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.10. Yes, all initial LIMP have been done and is in compliance with 195.452. .5 0.5 11 Is the state monitoring operator progress on the inspections, tests and remedial actions required by the operator's IMP, which includes the manner and schedule called for in its IMP? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.11. Yes, tests and remedial actions are being checked for compliance with their plan. .5 0.5 12 Is the state verifying operators are periodically examining their hazardous liquid piplines for the appearance of .5 0.5 new HCAs? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.12. Yes, all Haz Liq Operators have had one or more LIMP inspections, and they are follow up reviewed relative to what was found during the prior inspections. This question has been added to the Form 3 addendum sheet since November, 2010. Public Awareness (49 CFR Section 195.440) 13 Has the state verified that each operator has developed a continuing public awareness program (due date was 6/20/06 for most operators, 6/20/07 for certain very small operators)? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.13. Yes, and have also reviewed and resolved with the Operator all the Clearing House and CATS exceptions. .5 0.5 14 Has the state reviewed the content of these programs for compliance with 195.440 (by participating in the Clearinghouse or by other means)? Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: I.14. Yes, and have also reviewed and resolved with the Operator all the Clearing House and CATS exceptions. .5 0.5 15 Is the state verifying that operators are conducting the public awareness activities called for in its program? .5 0.5 Yes = .5 No = 0 SLR Notes: several times per year. I.15. Yes, through records review during Standard Inspections and providing instruction about it during the public awareness meetings that are conducted 16 Is the state verifying that operators have evaluated their public awareness programs for effectiveness as described in RP1162? Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: been received. I.16. Yes, in progress; two OCC inspectors have received the PAPEE Class in Houston in June, 2011. The inspection form and associated guidance has 17 Part I: General Comments/Regional Observations Info Only = No Points Info Only Info Only SLR Notes: I.17. OCC has an active D&A inspection program, is current with OQ inspections, is current with LIMP inspections, and has done all of the Public Awareness reviews, and are prepared to conduct the PAPEE reviews. Total points scored for this section: 9 Total possible points for this section: 9 DUNS: 150235299 2010 Hazardous Liquid State Program Evaluation Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Page: 22#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.
195.440 · state program evaluation cites