RegulusPipeline researchPHMSA ok-2019-underground-natural-gas-storage-program-evaluation
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 1Official PDFPHMSA UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE (UNGS) Oklahoma CC PROGRAM EVALUATION – CY2019 CONDUCTED 10/20/2020 A – PROGRESS REPORT AND PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION REVIEW 9 of 9 B – PROGRAM INSPECTION PROCEDURES 14 of 14 C – PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 30 of 30 (34) D – COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES 21 of 21 E – INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS 8 of 8 (13) F – DAMAGE PREVENTION 4 of 4 G – FIELD INSPECTIONS NC (12) H - 60106 AGREEMENT STATE (if applicable) NA (6) TOTAL PROGRAM EVALUATION POINTS 86 of 86 (113)#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 2PHMSA UNGS STATE PROGRAM EVALUATION – CY2019 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. Attachment 1 is consistent with Attachment 3 & 8 and is consistent with program records. 1 2 Review of Inspection Days for accuracy – Progress Report Attachment 2 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. 81 total days spread between 4 inspectors, were mostly team inspections in 2019. 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. 4 Operators and 4 Units; is consistent with program records. 1 4 Accuracy verification of Compliance Activities – Progress Report Attachment 5 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. Reviewed both violation letters. Is consistent with program records. 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. All digital, UNGS is rolled into existing files with HL & Gas Programs. 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. 2 Supervisors and all 4 inspectors have completed the UNGS Class. 1 7 Verification of Part 192 and 199 Rules and Amendments – Progress Report Attachment 8 (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. OK has automatic adoption of applicable Federal Regulations. 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. Program goals and reports were well presented in Attachment 10. 1 9 General Comments: Todd Hiett, Chairman, PO Box 52000, OCC, OKC OK 73152-2000. Dennis Fothergill, Pipeline Safety Manager, same address. UNGS PROGRESS REPORT REVIEW score is 49 of 50: Civil Penalties are $100K/$1M. No incidents were reported in UNGS for 2019, One SRC was reported and closed out. Part A scored 9 of 9 points. 9#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, 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. UNGS has been added into the existing Pipeline Procedures. 2 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. • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. See Page 5 & 6 for Pre; inspection; and Post Activities. 2 3 Specialized Inspections Do Specialized 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= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. See Page 5 & 6 for Pre; inspection; and Post Activities. 2 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. • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. See Page 5 & 6 for Pre; inspection; and Post Activities. 1#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 45 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. • Pre-Inspection Activities • Inspection Activities • Post Inspection Activities (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. See Page 5 & 6 for Pre; inspection; and Post Activities. 6 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 and compliance activities) • Type of activity being undertaken by operators in inspection units (i.e. construction) • Locations of operator’s inspection units being inspected - (HCA's, Geographic area, Population Density, etc.) • Process to identify high-risk inspection units considering integrity threats • Are inspection units broken down appropriately? (Yes= 6 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-5 points) Comments: Yes. See Page 7, 8, & 11 for length of time, and other considerations for the various inspection types. 7 General Comments: Part B scored 14 of 14 points 1 6 14#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, 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. 81/(.48*220)=.767>.37 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. 2 Supervisors and all 4 inspectors have completed the UNGS Class and D&A Class. 5 3 Does State use the PHMSA Inspection Assistant (IA) program to document inspections? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Not yet, but no loss of points for 2019. Discussed that IA is REQUIRED for 2020 work. 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: Yes. Dennis is a fully skilled Program Manager. 2 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: NA. This is the first year of the UNGS Program with OK CC. NA 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. Procedures call for five-year interval, but 3 Operators were inspected in 2019 & the 4th Operator was inspected in 2020. 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: Yes. A printed version of the IA Form was used. Discussed again that the IA program must be used for 2020. 2 8 Did State complete all applicable portions of inspection forms? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. The Form was filled out with necessary comments. 2#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 69 Has the State reviewed Operator Annual reports, along with Incident/Accident reports, for accuracy and analyzed data for trends and operator issues? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. Verified that all Operators submitted annual reports. Verified that what was reported matched State Records. No trending as this was the first year of the UNGS Program in OK. 2 10 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. D&A is covered through the Pipeline Program. 2 11 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. OCC website, Bi-Annual Pipeline Safety Meetings, Open records Requests, email, & phone. 1 12 Did State execute appropriate follow-up actions to Safety Related Condition (SRC) Reports? Chapter 6.3 (Yes= 1 points, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. One SRC, EOIT, casing corrosion, ran a liner. Closed the SRC. Records kept. 1 13 Did the State participate in/respond to surveys or information requests from PHMSA? (Yes= 1 points, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: Yes. Whenever requested. 1 14 Did the State forward any potential waivers/permits to PHMSA for review prior to issuing them to operators? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI=.5 point) Comments: NA. None for UNGS. Have procedures to handle them. NA 15 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. None for UNGS. Have procedures to handle them. NA 16 General Comments: Part C scored 30 of 30 points. Three questions were NA, #5, 14, & 15. 30#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, 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 • 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. See Procedures, pages 12 & 13. 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? • Document probable violations • Resolve probable violations • Routinely review progress of probable violations • ; and (Yes= 4 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1-3 points) Comments: Yes. Compliance Procedures were used in both Compliance actions. 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: Yes. It is OK CC policy to provide a verbal closing at the end of each inspection, and it is noted in the inspection file. 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. It is OK CC policy to send a Compliance letter within 90 days. The two Compliance letters were sent in 13 & 14 days after the Inspection. 5 Did the State issue compliance actions for all probable violations discovered? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. Three issues were found and shown in the Compliance letters. 6 Did compliance actions give reasonable due process to all parties? Including "show cause" hearing if necessary. (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. All options were made available to the Operators. 4 4 2 2 2 2#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 87 Is the Program Manager familiar with State process for imposing civil penalties? (describe any actions taken) (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes. Dennis is very familiar with OK CC civil penalty processes. 2 8 Were civil penalties considered for repeat violations, violations which can’t be corrected by other means, or violations resulting in incidents? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes, note that this is the first year of the UNGS Program in OK, no civil penalties were imposed, Operators are cooperative and invested in safety. 2 9 Can the State demonstrate it is using their enforcement fining authority for safety violations? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points, NI= .5 point) Comments: Yes. OK CC has issued several fines through its Pipeline Safety Program. 1 10 General Comments: Part D scored 21 of 21 points 21#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, 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: Yes, See page 4 of the Procedures. 2 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: Yes, See OAC 165:20-5-11. 2 3 Did the State keep adequate records of Incident notifications received? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 point) Comments: Yes, it is established practice and UNGS has been included in that practice. 2 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. The Procedures, Policy, and Practice are in place. NA 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. The Procedures, Policy, and Practice are in place. NA 6 Did the State initiate compliance action for violations found during any incident investigation? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: NA, no UNGS incidents. The Procedures, Policy, and Practice are in place. NA 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: Yes. OK is always willing to help. The Procedures, Policy, and Practice are in place. 1 8 Does State share lessons learned from incidents with PHMSA? (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: Yes. During Regional NAPSR Meetings. 1 9 General Comments: Part E scored 8 of 8 points Three questions were NA; #4, 5, & 6. 8#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 10F – 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: Yes. Damage is handled by the Pipeline Program 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. Through scheduled meetings and email correspondence. See OAC 165:20- 17-1. 3 General Comments: Part F scored 4 of 4 points 2 2 4#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 11G – FIELD INSPECTIONS 1 Operator, Inspector, Location, Date and PHMSA Representative Comments: NC. Oneok Gas Transportation, OP ID 31286, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19, and the death of family members of critical Operator staff. 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: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 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: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 4 Did the inspector thoroughly document results of the inspection? (Yes= 2 points, No= 0 Points, NI=1 Point) Comments: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 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: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 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: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 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: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 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: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. NC NC NC NC NC NC NC#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 129 During the exit interview, did the inspector identify probable violations found during the inspections? (if applicable) (Yes= 1 point, No= 0 Points) Comments: NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. 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 Part G scored 0 of 0 points; NC, had to cancel the inspection due to COVID-19. Field Observation Areas Observed (check all that apply) NC NC#
OK UNGS Program Evaluation, 2019, page 13H - 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: NA. not a 60106 program 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: NA. not a 60106 program 3 Were any 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. not a 60106 program 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. not a 60106 program 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. not a 60106 program 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: NA. not a 60106 program 7 General Comments: NA. not a 60106 program NA NA NA NA NA NA NA#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.