Minutes
2005
National NAPSR Meeting
Embassy Suites Cleveland Rockside
Tuesday September 27, 2005
Board Members
|
|
Chairman |
Ed
Steel ( |
|
|
Vice
Chairman |
Don
Martin ( |
|
|
Secretary |
Philip
Sher ( |
|
|
Treasurer |
Hans
Mertens ( |
|
|
Past
Chairman |
Jim
Anderson ( |
|
|
Eastern
Region Chairman |
Paul
Metro |
|
|
Eastern
Region Vice Chairman |
Massoud
Tahamtani |
|
|
Central
Region Chairman |
Rex
Evans ( |
|
|
Central
Region Vice Chairman |
Paul
Proudfoot (MI) Absent represented by Annmarie Robertson (IN) |
|
|
Southern
Region Chairman |
Glynn
Blanton ( |
|
|
Southern
Region Vice Chairman |
Mark
Carver ( |
|
|
Southwest
Region Chairman |
Mary
McDaniel ( |
|
|
Southwest
Region Vice Chairman |
Alan
Bohnenkamp ( |
|
|
Western
Region Chairman |
Kent
Evans UT) |
|
|
Western
Region Vice Chairman |
Ron
Law (ID) |
I GENERAL
The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Ed Steele (
Donald L. Mason, Esq., Commissioner,
Ohio Public Utilities Commission, welcomed NAPSR to
It was moved, seconded and
unanimously approved to accept the minutes of the 2004 NAPSR National Meeting.
Chairman Steel appointed a
nominating committee to seek candidates for the position of NAPSR Secretary: Massoud Tahamtami (Chair) (VA), Jim Anderson
(NC) and Annmarie Robertson (IN).
II OPS REPORT Stacey Gerard/Ted Wilke
Stacey Gerard Associate
Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, was unable to attend the
meeting. Ted Wilke Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety addressed the group.
1)
He stated that
he was here to present information to NAPSR and to listen to NAPSRs concerns.
2)
He recognized Ed
Steele for his efforts as NAPSR Chairman.
Ed has played a critical role in supporting OPS in
3)
Main areas to be
covered
a)
Lessons from
Hurricane Katrina
i)
PHMSA Pipeline
Safety was actively involved in recovery activities. This is a new program responsibility for OPS.
ii)
PHMSA Acting
Administrator and Deputy Administrator Brigham McCown was sent to
iii)
A key crude oil
pipeline, Capline, which runs from the
iv)
OPS granted
emergency permits and regulatory relief (OQ, inspections).
v)
PHMSA had 20
people in crisis management center at DOT.
vi)
The National
Pipeline Mapping System was used by DOT in dealing with the emergency
vii)
Supply (deliverability)
issues are connected to the OPS safety role.
Supply to communities is a safety issue.
b)
Strategic focus
of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Program
i)
Reorganization
(1)
Stacey Acting
Chief Safety Officer, as well as Acting Administrator
(2)
Little direct
impact on pipeline safety program
ii)
Priorities for
States
(1)
Commitment to
the State programs and the relationship with states
(2)
Recognition of added
responsibilities of states with respect to integrity management and OQ
(3)
Special challenges
of State programs related to gas distribution systems and small operators
iii)
Need public confidence
in pipeline safety in order to build new pipelines
(1)
Average citizen
is becoming more risk averse
(2)
Local groups and
grass roots groups are insisting on greater role on siting and operations
(3)
Rebuilding
public confidence after
(4)
Constant
oversight by GAO, NTSB, DOT IG
(5)
Growing
stakeholder community
iv)
In order to
address the trust issue OPS has:
(1)
Established
safety standards for OQ and liquid and transmission IMP
(2)
Strengthening
state partnerships
(3)
Demonstrate will
to enforce
(4)
Improve data
quality
(5)
Focus on damage
prevention
(6)
Build an R&D
program
(7)
Find the
resources
v)
Measures of
pipeline safety
(1)
Pipeline
incidents
(a)
Incidents have
been climbing overt the last three years, especially incidents involving
distribution systems.
(2)
Incidents caused
by excavation damage
(a)
These incidents
are down
(3)
Major incidents
(a)
Highly visible,
seemingly random, catastrophic incidents
(b)
Examples:
vi)
Three Pillars of
OPS Strategy
(1)
Pipeline Safety
Regulation
(a)
Inspection and
Enforcement
(b)
Analysis of
Incidents
(c)
Integrity
Management Programs
(d)
Operator
Qualifications
(e)
Research &
Development
(f)
National
Pipeline Mapping System
(2)
Shared knowledge
and responsibility
(a)
Stakeholder
Communications
(b)
Pipeline Safety
Partnerships
(c)
State
Commissions/Pipeline Safety Programs
(d)
Fire Service
(i)
NASFM Pipeline
emergency response program (complete) and LNG education
(e)
FERC and
U.S.C.G. (LNG)
(f)
Public Awareness
Programs
(g)
Permit
Streamlining (Repairs)
(h)
Common Ground
(3)
Improving our
stewardship in a changing world energy, environment and security\
(a)
Energy
(i)
Land Use
Guidelines Around Pipelines
(ii)
LNG Safety
(iii)
Community
Outreach
(iv)
(b)
Security
(i)
Working with
Homeland Security
(c)
Environment
(i)
Oil Spill
Response Planning
c)
The Regulatory
Agenda
i)
Administration
Guidance to Minimize New Regulatory Initiatives
(1)
More advisories
and working with state and operators rather than rule making
ii)
Resolution of
Issues
(1)
Operator
Qualifications (NTSB)
(2)
Gathering Lines
Definition
(3)
A Dozen Audits
(OIG, GAO)
(4)
Statutory
Mandates
iii)
Focus
(1)
Distribution
Integrity Management (EFVs)
(2)
Satisfaction of
NTSB on Operator Qualifications
iv)
Challenges for
States
(1)
Responsibilities
Growing Faster Than Budgets
(2)
Keeping Pace
with New Knowledge and Training
(3)
Growing
Reporting Requirements
(4)
Expectations for
Greater Consultation with PHMSA
(5)
Q from NAPSR: Is
there any plan to address these issues?
A: Grant to APWA to address small operator issues, working to increase
budget for state programs
(6)
Comment from
NAPSR: States have been partners since 1968, other partners are fine, but we are
the key partner
v)
Challenges for
Small Operators
(1)
Tough Budget
Choices
(a)
Small Budgets
(b)
Few Employees
(c)
Pipeline
Requirements or Other City Improvements
(2)
Having the Right
Information to Address Real Risks, e.g. EFVs
(a)
Lacking the
Specialized Employees of Large Companies
(3)
Appropriate
Approaches to Damage Prevention?
(a)
Regional
CGAs? (Common Ground
(b)
Municipal
Exemptions from One-Call?
(c)
Using Qualified
Excavators?
(4)
Prescriptive
Versus Performance-Based Regulations
vi)
Impetus for a
Distribution Integrity Management Program
(1)
Concern about
Trends in Distribution Incidents
(2)
Visibility of
Major Incidents
(3)
Pressures for
Solutions, e.g. EFVs
(4)
Guidance from
the DOT Inspector General
(5)
Stakeholder
Confidence in Integrity Management
vii)
Integrity
Management Programs--Transmission
(1)
Pipeline
Assessment in high consequence areas (Pigging)
(2)
Data Integration
(3)
Allocate
resources--highest risks
(4)
Performance
measurement
(5)
Continuous
improvement
viii)
Direction for Distribution Integrity Management
(1)
Simple, Flexible
Federal Regulation
(a)
Recognition of
State Regulatory Oversight
(b)
Supplemental
Consensus Standards
(c)
Public Awareness
and R&D Programs
(2)
Recognition of
Differences
(a)
Regional
Variations
(b)
Vintage/Type of
Infrastructure
(c)
Small Versus
Large Operators
ix)
Distribution Integrity Management Risk Mitigation Options
(1)
Damage
Prevention Programs
(2)
Leak Management
Programs
(3)
Pipe Management
Programs
(a)
Replacement
Programs
(b)
Remediation
Programs
(4)
Risk
Assessment/Prioritization
(a)
Risk Modeling
(b)
Risk Prioritization
(5)
Excess Flow
Valves
(a)
Strong Advocates
for Mandating EFVs
(i)
NTSB (Past and
Present Members)
(ii)
2001 Incident,
South Riding, VA
(iii)
Some in Congress
(iv)
Representatives
of the Fire Service
(b)
Opposition to
EFV Mandate
(i)
Industry
(ii)
Some States
(c)
PHMSA Preference
for Embedding in Distribution Integrity Management
(6)
Find defects and
fix them before they become problems
x)
Operator Qualifications
(1)
Need to Resolve
NTSB Recommendations Before Reauthorization
(a)
Training
(b)
Requalification
Intervals
(2)
ASME B31Q Making
Progress Toward Standard
(3)
May Incorporate
Key Provisions of Standard in Rulemaking
xi)
OQ Challenges
(1)
Difficulties of
Small Operators in Meeting the Requirements, especially municipals and master
meter operations
(2)
Need for
Guidance for LPG Systems
(3)
Report to
Congress Due December 17, 2005
(a)
(4)
Must get this
off the table by end of 2006 or will be reauthorization issue
xii)
Reauthorization
(1)
Likely in 2006
(a)
Mandates from
PSIA 2002
(b)
Remaining Issues
from NTSB, OIG & GAO
(2)
No Hot Issues
No Accidents!
(3)
Heard on the
Street
(a)
Possible
Pipeline Safety Role in Emergency Response?
(b)
Role of Pipeline
Safety in Security?
(c)
Excess Flow
Valves?
xiii)
The Future Raising the Bar on Safety
(1)
Build on
Integrity Management
(2)
Strengthen
Inspection & Enforcement
(3)
Focus on Safety
Issues
(a)
Problems (e.g.
seam failures)
(b)
Poor Performing
Operators
(c)
Performance
Measurement (and Data)
(4)
Partner with
Stakeholders
xiv)
Questions and
comments
(1)
Q from NAPSR: How
far do we go on OQ to satisfy NTSB? A: Trying to get NTSB to close its
recommendations. May need to add a
little more in a mini rule to resolve the problem.
(2)
Q from NAPSR: States
were not alerted to OPS actions re Katrina.
Would not it have been better if they were? A: Good comment
(3)
Q from NAPSR: Sometimes
it is hard to get fire personnel to attend training, because off lack of
funding. Is it possible to get some
funds for training? A; Issue of funds is problematic. The NASFM program is self-directed training. OPS is urging operators to use this as a
vehicle
(4)
NAPSR Comment: Glad
to see that supply is a safety issue.
(5)
Q from
NAPSR: Should we send state inspector
personnel to a disaster to help out? A: Gas
distribution mutual aid programs have been effective. The dilemma is that regulators are not always
seen as people who can help the problem, but as people looking over shoulders
and passing judgment. We should
establish mutual aid for the states. It
was noted that after the hurricane,
(6)
Q from NAPSR: Why
give more money to 1st responder rather than states, why address response
rather than prevention? No clear
response was given.
(7)
Q from NAPSR:
Should a response team be formed of immediately adjacent states to work
together and coordinate with OPS for emergencies such as hurricanes. They are considering the situation.
d)
The Regulatory
Agenda II
i)
Improve the
nations pipelines by developing performance-based regulations
ii)
Open mandates
(1)
GAO 4
(2)
OIG 5
(3)
NTSB 9
(4)
Congress 10
iii)
Reference
standards
(1)
Incorporate by
reference 70 technical standards
(2)
Participate in
24 committees
(3)
Law require OPS
to maximize use technical standards
iv)
Current rule
initiatives
(1)
Gas Gathering
SNPRM
(2)
Direct
Assessment Final Rule
(3)
Internal
Corrosion NPRM
(4)
Integrity
Management Modifications and Clarifications NPRM
(5)
Public Awareness
Petition for Reconsideration
(6)
Hazardous Liquid
Gathering NPRM
v)
Future
Regulatory Initiatives
(1)
Operator
Qualification
(2)
Distribution
Integrity Management/EFVs
(3)
Miscellaneous
Amendments
(4)
SCADA
Recommendations
(5)
Valve Spacing
(6)
Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure
(7)
Safety Orders special
provision that would not require declaring a facility as a hazardous facility
vi)
Q from NAPSR:
There is an issue of valve spacing when there is a change in class
location. Should operators have to drop
in an additional valve? A: Industry objected.
vii)
Q from NAPSR:
There has been an issue of temporarily exceeding the MAOP when it is necessary
to maintain service in cold weather and the need for temporary waivers of regulations. Would this be included in OPS list of
emergency powers it feels necessary as a result of dealing with the issues of
hurricane Katrina. A: I would like to
know what emergency powers may be needed.
Email ideas to him/
III OPS REPORT DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Mike Israni Senior Technical Advisor, Office of
Pipeline Safety
1)
Last week there was
a public meeting on distribution IMP in
2)
The driver
behind the IMP activity is the
3)
He stated that
he was here to present information to NAPSR and to listen to NAPSRs concerns.
4)
Transmission and
liquid IMP have been developed.
5)
We need to apply
the principles to distribution.
6)
Distribution
incidents are similar to transmission on a per mile basis.
7)
Congress wants
action.
8)
Action means new
burdens on operators.
9)
Reducing
incidents justifies new costs.
10)
Cost recovery is
a state issue
11)
DOT Inspector
General has addressed 3 elements:
a)
Know system
infrastructure
b)
Identify the
threats
c)
Reduce the risks
12)
He described the
organization of group working on distribution IMP
a)
Executive
steering committee
b)
Coordinating
committee
c)
Work Groups
i)
Strategic
Options
ii)
Excavation
Damage
iii)
Data
iv)
Risk Control Practices
13)
The path seems
to be a risk-based, flexible, performance-oriented federal regulation,
establishing high-level principles that must be included in integrity
management programs. The regulations
would establish elements required in such a program,
14)
In his
presentation, Mike referred to protocols.
This led to a significant discussion among NAPSR members, all indicating
that State do not wish to have protocols for distribution IMP.
IV OPS REPORT Tom Fortner Director, State
Programs
1)
Congressman
Barton proposed a bill that FERC would have jurisdiction over all liquid lines rather
than OPS.
2)
Jeff Wiese has
been very instrumental in working with NASFM.
Their grant is for $2.4 million.
If there are any questions on this, they should be addressed to Jeff.
3)
One of the
outcomes of the LDC RAFT was to identify the need for emergency waivers. Also, some years ago there was a NAPSR
resolution on this matter.
4)
The States as a
whole are extremely involved in OPS projects.
However, some States are not involved.
There is a need for other states to step up.
5)
Regarding FedStar,
OPS is open to improvements.
a)
There was an Eastern
Region resolution that if OPS adds state performance and other data to add
federal data, that data on the federal regional offices also be provided.
b)
The OPS website contains
State profiles. States should check them
for errors.
6)
OPS asked for an
additional $2 million for base program and $ 0.5 million for 1-call. The DOT budget contains an additional $1
million for 2007 without identification of the increase (base vs. 1-call).
7)
Regarding the OQ
database, OPS will email to all states.
8)
Regarding the NAPSR
Executive Director, things are moving forward.
The purpose is to assist in day-to-day operations and committees. NAPSR to submit a proposal for a 2 year time
frame. The proposal must include all
travel costs related to that position.
9)
Standards now on
web except GPTC (which is in progress) and NFPA (will be added soon).
V NAPSR UPDATE ON DISTRIBUTION INTEGRITY
Glynn Blanton
1)
There is a
strong opinion against protocols for distribution IMP.
2)
Cost recovery is
a state issue
3)
Reviewed makeup
of committee and its structure, and its timeline and actions.
a)
Agreement on
options to pursue
i)
Nationwide
damage prevention education
ii)
Guidance to
operators
iii)
High-level,
flexible federal rule
iv)
Continued
R&D
b)
Agreement on
what not to pursue
i)
ii)
Guidance for
State adoption
iii)
Prescriptive
federal regulation
4)
Coordinating
Group report to Steering Group 12/6/05.
5)
Public meeting
(tentative) January 2006.
6)
Concern about
Master Meter and LP operators ability to comply with the regulation. Dont set them or us up to failure!
7)
Encourage States
to have a Damage Prevention Law that includes:
8)
Mandatory
Membership
9)
Enforcement
Procedures
10)
Penalties for
failure to comply
11)
Promote 811 (for
information see www.state.tn.us/tra/
Activity Docket Index (Docket 05-00161)
VI NAPSR COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) Electronic
Communications Committee Todd DelVecchio (OPS) for Steve Pott (CO)
a)
NAPSR
interactive web site is being established.
b)
Question were
raised about the need for program managers to be invited to certain closed
areas of the NAPSR web site as apposed to having automatic access to all areas.
2) Liaison Committee Don Martin
a) Revision
to articles was a major project. He thanked
Don Stursma for his efforts in this area.
b) Developed
a mission statement for Liaison Committee.
c) In
the future, Liaison will work with Legislative to prepare testimony as
appropriate and develop a new Tell Our Story.
3) Grant Allocation & Strategic
Planning - Glynn Blanton
a) A
meeting in January 2006 to address 1-call grants. Minutes were sent to NAPSR membership.
i) $2.2
million requested, but only $1.0 million available
ii) Decided
to eliminate requests for mapping and decided this was not a priority.
iii) Used
FedStar to review the applications.
iv) There
were no calls to program managers for clarification.
v) Committee
made its recommendations to OPS.
vi) Final
allocation made by OPS.
b) Had
a telephone conversation with Stacey re EFVs.
4) Legislative - Massoud Tahamtani
a) Prepared
issue paper to staffers to keep our name in front of the right people.
b) Will
save Tell Our Story for reauthorization hearings.
c) Working
with Liaison.
VII NAPSR REGION REPORTS
1) Eastern Region - Paul Metro (PA)
a) 4
new program managers this year, 6 new program managers in the last 2 years. We are looking to our elder statesmen for
guidance.
b) Concentrating
on damage prevention. 10 of 14 states
have enforcement of 1-call law.
c) Several
states have completed reliability studies and have performance measures.
2) Central Region Rex Evans (IL)
a)
Minutes of
central region meeting are in handout.
b)
c)
3) Southern Region Glynn Blanton (TN)
a)
State by state
activities in package.
b)
SC reorganized
program
4) Southwest Region - No report
5) Western Region Kent Evans (UT)
a) He
will no longer be program manager.
b) Report
in book
VIII NAPSR TASK FORCE REPORTS (see below for
membership)
1) AGF DIGIT Study Don Martin (AR)
a) Task
completed
b) Voted
to disband committee.
2) API 1104
a) No
report.
3) B31Q
a) No
report. Action pending.
4) Broad Based Agency Announcements
a) No
report. Working on latest group of
projects.
5) CGA Committee
a) Best
Practices
i) Meeting
2-3 times a year
b) Board
Member Glynn Blanton (TN)
i) Still
active, at end of 2007, term ends. Membership
fee ends December, possible increase from $10k to $20k
c) Data
Collection Annmarie Robertson (IN)
i) DIRT
Committee meeting, 26,000 plus records from 80 companies, report to be
completed by December. Still active.
d) Education
Charles Kenow (MN)
i) Still
active. Key items are reevaluating the effectiveness of the agriculture
campaign; Marketing is now merged into Education
e) R&D
i) No
report. Member Gary Finnel (AZ) has resigned. Need a new member.
f) Marketing,
Membership & Communications Ron Law (ID)
i) Merged
with Education committee. Delete this committee from NAPSR roster.
g) Tom
Fortner noted a concern about CGA 1-day meetings that take 2 days of travel and
cost considerable amount of money.
6) Gas IMP/Direct Assessment Philip Sher
(CT)
a) Committee
inactive. Recommended and decided to disband.
7) Gas IMP/Protocol - Jill Henry (OH)
a) Participated
in public meeting earlier this year.
There may be a reset meeting. Do
not know if committee will need to continue.
8) Gas IMP/Small Operator Committee Dana Arabie (LA) Jill Henry reporting
a) What
product is coming from group to states?
Liquid form developed and given to States. Hope to be available to states end of year
9) GPTC, Philip Sher (CT)
a) 35th
anniversary meeting in July.
b) Working
on materials for a distribution IMP appendix.
10) Gathering/Gas & Liquid Leo Haynos (KS)
a) Have
not met in over a year, but with new actions pending, need to continue.
11) OQ Federal/Sate Inspection Task Group Rex Evans
a) Can
close committee. B31Q group can handle any tasks.
12) OQ Small Operators/Gas Don Stursma
a) Can
close committee, B31Q group can handle any tasks.
13) OQ Standards/Liquid, Gas Rex Evans
a) Inactive
and can close, B31Q group can handle any tasks.
14) Plastic
Pipe Database Committee
a) Meeting
scheduled. Annual report issued early
this year and is available on AGA web site.
15) Public Awareness/Proposed Rulemaking - Gavin
Nicoletta report
a) Jim
Wiese plans on using this committee.
16) Security Committee - Bob Leonberger
a) Has
not hand anything for over a year. Will close this group.
17) Small Operator Liquid IMP Jill Henry
a) Disbanded
when small operators committee formed, closed.
18) Small Operators Guide - Danny McGraff
a) Closed
it last year.
19) Standards Development Organization
Coordinating Council - Bob Leonberger
a) Function
is to monitor.
20) SIRCC - Don Stursma (IA)
a) Made
inactive earlier in the year, kept in case a new assignment is given, Recommended
to hold committee until OPS acts on SIRCC 2.
Counter proposal, close and allow Liaison to handle. Accepted closing
21) IOCS - Alan Washbun (WA)
a) Only
impacts interstate agents. Should be
addressed at next interstate agent meeting.
Anne Marie Joseph is waiting to hear from states if they have a desire
for the meeting
22) TPSSC - Glynn Blanton (TN)
a) This
is not a part of the NAPSR organization and should not be included in directory.
|
Central |
Eastern |
Southern |
Southwestern |
Western |
|
1 American Gas Foundation (AGF) Distribution Study - DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 American Petroleum Institute API 1104 Standard |
||||
|
|
|
|
Robert Hippe AZ |
|
|
3 B31Q |
||||
|
Rex Evans IL |
Don Ledversis RI |
Danny McGriff GA |
Corky |
|
|
4 Broadbase Agency Announcement |
||||
|
Tom Stemrich WI |
|
|
|
|
|
5a Common Ground |
||||
|
Michael McGrath MN |
|
|
|
|
|
5b Common Ground |
||||
|
|
|
Glynn Blanton TN |
|
|
|
5c Common Ground |
||||
|
Annmarie Robertson IN |
|
|
|
|
|
5d Common Ground |
||||
|
Charles Kenow MN |
|
|
|
|
|
5e Common Ground |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Finnell AZ |
|
5f Common Ground |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 Gas IMP/Direct Assessment DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 Gas Integrity Management/Protocols |
||||
|
|
Carlos Ortiz NY |
Jill Henry OH |
Dana Arabie LA, Danny Nichols TX |
|
|
8 Gas IMP/Small Operators |
||||
|
Jill Henry OH |
Carlos Ortiz NY |
|
Dana Arabie LA, |
Scott Ruffe WA |
|
9 Gas Piping Technology Committee |
||||
|
Jill Henry OH |
|
|
|
|
|
10 Gathering/Gas & Liquid |
||||
|
Leo |
Darrel McKown WV |
Clint Stephens AR |
Mary McDaniel TX, Dana Arabie LA |
Steve Pott CO, Bob Gorham CASFM |
|
11 Operator Qualification (OQ) Federal/State Inspection DISBANDED |
||||
|
Rex Evan IL, Ron Wiest MN |
Ron Passmore NY |
Danny McGriff GA |
Corky Hanson AZ, Mary McDaniel TX, Danny Nichols TX |
|
|
12 OQ Small Operators/Gas DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 OQ Standards/Liquid Gas DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 Plastic Pipe Database Committee |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 Public Awareness/Proposed Rule Making |
||||
|
|
Pat Rachel NY |
|
Ted Tyger OK |
|
|
16 Security Committee DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 Small Operators Liquid Integrity Management Program DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 Small Operates Guide DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 Standards Development Organization Coordinating Committee |
||||
|
Robert Leonberger MO |
|
|
|
|
|
20 State Industry Regulatory Review Committee DISBANDED |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 IOCS |
||||
|
Daren Lemmeman MN |
Bruce Kain VA |
No interstate Agents |
Vacancy |
Alan Rathbun (Chair) WA |
IX OPS REPORT TRAINING - Richard Sanders
Division Manager
Handed
out a CD
1)
Mandatory
training (on CD)
a)
PL250 is
prerequisite
b)
9 courses have
CBT prerequisite
c)
Prefer 4-6 months
minimum experience before attending TSI
d)
Q Why dont we have 250 class in the regions?
A: Will consider it.
e)
Q Will there be 2 250 courses each year? A: At this time, yes.
2)
Training
requests (on CD)
a)
2-3 years ago, TSI
was meeting needs.
b)
Last year, TSI
had trouble meeting needs.
3)
CEUs (on CD)
a)
Not cost
effective to implement
b)
New program eLMS,
to determine training needs
4)
Assessment
guidelines for IMP (on CD)
a)
When development
done (Jeff Wiese, Bruce Hanson, Zach Barrett) on training, pass on to TSI
personnel
b)
CBT training
going from CBT to WBT (web based training)
c)
Can go on line
and access any of the CDs and DVDs on-line
d)
Only IMP course
at TSI was liquid IMP
e)
Complaint
final exam not available until 6 weeks after course given
f)
Q Do people get
a certificate for IMP training, development group has to develop
5)
CBT prerequisite
MUST be passed to take the course
a)
More material
than can be covered in 5 days history and fundamental information handled
through CBT.
b)
Try to establish
a baseline of knowledge coming into the course to balance the students taking
the courses.
6)
Future Learning
Management System (eLMS).
a)
Perform a Job
Task Analysis (JTA).
b)
Included accreditation
fro CPE/CEU.
c)
Critical
Pipeline Employee Requirements.
7)
FY 06 Schedule
(thru 2nd Quarter) (on CD).
a)
Uncertain budget
situation.
b)
Projection
will not meet requirements in the future.
8)
General Pipeline
Safety Awareness Course
a)
Have held it in
the regions if facilities are available.
b)
9)
OQ Mini rule
a)
3/3/05 FR,
Direct Final Rule
b)
Developed
database
c)
Expected B31Q to
address issues
d)
Slowed down
because of B31Q
e)
Mini Rule to
address specific requirements of law and NTSB issues
i.
Training if
training necessary, it should be in the OQ program
ii.
Provide notice
of SIGNIFICANT program changes
1.
Example: Current
reevaluate every year, change to 5 years
iii.
Government
review and verification
iv.
Observation of
OJT performance as the sole method of evaluating qualifications not longer
allowed.
f)
OQ Inspection
Protocols
i.
Revision 4 (on
CD and Web site)
ii.
Q Can you use
Revision 3 if that was the revision in effect when the inspection was
performed? Yes, but have to contact
Randy to be able to.
iii.
Fines
1.
<10 miles -
$54-10K
2.
about 100 -
$50-60
3.
Over 250 miles -
$100
4.
in
database: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/oqdb/home.oq
10)
B31Q
a) Negative
votes, some found persuasive.
b) 1 was
technical in nature.
i.
Standard on hold.
ii.
Second voting
cycle of B31 no negatives at this point.
iii.
Q Government
agreed, but industry voted negative at B31.
Should government use consensus standard process again?
c) Federal
OQ folks where need to fix rule regarding the 13 issues done.
i. looks
at safety and integrity, not 4 part test.
11)
Class Location
(on CD)
a)
PowerPoint
presentation on TSI understanding of Class location vs. operator understanding
12)
Gathering Line Definition
a)
DeWitt will do
presentation
13)
PPDC
a)
Large amount of
effort to promote this
b)
Trends are
developing
c)
160 companies
d)
62% of main
e)
72% plastic
services
f)
6700 data points
collected
g)
Listed known types
of failure, including pipe and appurtenances
h)
Christina Sames
AGA
14)
Plastic Issues
a)
IDF design
formula to change .32 to .4
i.
If repeated
static discharge, plastic breaks down
ii.
Will be a report
issued.
b)
Regrind
i.
½ cts, but also
some up to 1
ii.
Some companies will
not allow regrind Keyspan, Southwest Gas
c)
ASTM testing
protocols
d)
PA-11 nylon,
water soluble
e)
PA-12
f)
Q What about
P100?
i.
Resin
manufacturers from
ii.
iii.
Drisco 8100
could pass test as P100
iv.
ASTM do we
want to allow ISO or do we set our own requirements, P100 would be a 4710?
v.
When OPS adopts
latest edition, P100 will become a ASTM D2513 as 4710 material.
X OPS REPORT - Linda Dougherty
1) Guidance manuals used by regions.
2) Part 192 and 195 guide for O&M and
corrosion
3) Will be available on FedStar
XI OPS REPORT FedStar - Todd DelVecchio, VOLPE
1)
FedStar is
available 24/7
2)
2004 Equipment
a)
Planning for new
purchase in 1 ½ years
3)
Archival
a)
Adding old
materials back many years
4)
Due dates
calendar
5)
Change in
security setup
a)
Can control your
employees access to FedStar
b)
When program
manager logs in, he can adjust the individuals access
6)
New FedStar
status
a)
White I have met the minimum requirement
b)
Red I need help with this step
c)
Yellow I met the requirements but I need to
return here
d)
Green I have completed this step, but the data
can be changed if it needs to be until the due date
7)
Standards
a)
All standards
in WinDOT and standards
b)
Not taking away
WinDOT
c)
Under new
system, up to 10 people can use the standard at the same time
d)
Standards are
printable and are downloadable
i)
AGA will be
another month
ii)
NFPA coming in
October
e)
Help
i)
Carrie 617-494-3318
ii)
Kelly (thru Dec) 617-494-2129
iii)
Todd 617-494-2122
8)
NAPSR
Interactive Web Site (NIWS)
a)
Off the shelf
software which has been modified for NAPSR's use
b)
Calendars
c)
Can store
documents
d)
To-dos
e)
Steve Potts (CO)
will be first line of support
f)
Everyone who has
access to FedStar can get in
9)
If you have Word
vs. Adobe problem, do in word, scan it as a PDF, copy back into Adobe
10)
Standards
a)
Can print
b)
Can download
c)
When in
standard, can do word search - searches entire set of standards
d)
When in
downloaded PDF, word search will search only that standard
XII OPS REPORT - ONSHORE GAS GATHERING LINES -
Dewitt Burdeaux
1)
Groups
a)
NAPSR Gathering
Committee
b)
IPAA Gathering
task force
c)
GPA Gathering
task force
2)
What is a
production facility
3)
What about
commingling
4)
Types of
pipelines
a)
Type A
i)
=> 20% SMYS,
or
ii)
Above 125 psig
for non-metallic
b)
Type B
i)
<20% SMYS
ii)
At or below 125
psig or non-metallic
5)
Regulate
a)
Type A
i)
Class 3 & 4
ii)
Class 1 & 2
by one of the following methods
(1)
PIR
(2)
220 yards of the
line 25 dwelling units per mile provided areas containing 5 dwelling units
per 1000 linear feet of pipeline are captured
b)
Type B
i)
Class 3 & 4
ii)
Class 1 & 2
(1)
An area within
class 1 or class 2 locations that extents 150 feet on each side of the
centerline of any continuous 1000 feet of pipeline and includes 5 or more
dwellings per 1000 feet
6)
Requirements
a)
Type A
i)
All 192 except IM
and
b)
Type B
i)
If a line is
new, replaced, relocated or otherwise changed the design, installation,
construction, initial inspection, and initial test must be in accordance with
this part
ii)
All
(1)
Metallic
control corrosion according to Subpart I
(2)
Damage
prevention program under 192.614
(3)
Establish MAOP
under 192.619
(4)
Install and
maintain line markers under 192.707
(5)
Public education
program under 192.616
(6)
No emergency
response
(7)
No leak survey
7)
Compliance
deadlines will be covered
8)
MAOP will use
highest in last 5 years prove it
9)
Modification of
corrosion control requirements
10)
Reporting
requirements still being developed
11)
Sour gas issue
a)
No comments
received
b)
Would get a lot
of push back from industry and State boards
12)
Question what
about OQ for Type B No
13)
Questions what
about drug and alcohol Yes
14)
Questions What
about liquid gathering some time in the future
XIII OPS REPORT Jeff Wiese, Director, Program
Development
[State
& Regulators Only]
1)
For more than 5
years, 1 objective is to improve relationship with States
2)
Budget
a)
Payroll, travel,
invitational travel and contracts - cannot freely move money between the 3
areas
3)
Hope for no new
initiatives
4)
Congressman
Barton,
5)
Pressures on
federal budget better way to prioritize not likely to get more
6)
CGA
a)
In-kind contributions
dwarf federal funding
b)
Helpful in
closing recommendations from NTSB
c)
Funding goes to
help funding the meetings
7)
Performance =
Regulations + Standards + Compliance Oversight + Beyond Regulations (damage
prevention, encroachment, communications); P = R+
8)
Projects
a)
National Mapping
System
i)
post 911 based
on need to know, not right to know
ii)
Working with
FERC, etc.
iii)
classified as
sensitive security information (SSI) below secret
b)
R&D
i)
Congress
increased R&D funding for integrity
ii)
Was surcharge on
pipelines for R&D, now gone
iii)
DOE money gone
iv)
Pipeline
investment in R&D very low
v)
Broad Agency Announcement
#5
1.
Damage Prevention
2.
DA
3.
Inspection
4.
Leak detection
5.
Design
6.
Mechanical
damage
c)
Public awareness
i)
Damage Prevention
Program for Excavators 192.614 , 195.442
ii)
Emergency Plans
for Emergency Officials 192.615, 195.402
iii)
Public Education
for General Public 192.616, 195.440
iv)
Operators must
submit for review plans
v)
1162 Appendices
are not mandatory
vi)
Congress
earmarked $750,000 for centralized review of public education programs
vii)
Early draft of
criteria was worked on with NAPSR
viii)
Needs to be
revised to meet final rule
ix)
Need set of
criteria we agree to by next spring
1.
Is the program
complete does it address all the items in 1162?
2.
Is it minimally
adequate?
3.
Q from NAPSR: How
will that information be shared with states? A: Unfunded mandate.
4.
Q from NAPSR:
$750,000 was earmarked from other money? A: Will use that money to establish a
clearinghouse, setout process, submit programs.
Will have a website with all plans filed, clearinghouse will review, all
correspondence goes to state, all enforcement by state
5.
Q from NAPSR: If
you have a set of requirements, why not send out a wizard to operators to
fill in the blanks to comply? A: Cannot ignore Congressional direction. They have included specific requirements in
law plus language in reauthorization giving direction. 2 workshops
6.
NAPSR Comment: Large
company could use it as a check.
7.
Q from NAPSR:
Can a state opt out and do its own review? A: We can talk about it.
8.
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/PublicEducation.htm
9.
Q from NAPSR: Have
you sat down with small operators and talked with them? A: No.
d)
Transmission Pipelines
and Land Use, A Risk-Informed Approach
i)
Required to
report to Congress
1.
will talk to
federal partners
2.
Pipelines and
Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) (like a CGA)
3.
Start up Q1 Q2
2006, looking for NAPSR involvement
e)
Performance
Measures
i)
Need performance
measures to demonstrate the value of what we do
ii)
Reliability no
measures, but system is up and running over 98%.
iii)
Data team
currently in place, could address this
iv)
Barrels lost per
ton shipped
v)
Comment from
NAPSR: You should factor in cost per customer.
f)
NASFM
i)
Funded out of
contract budget
ii)
3 on-going
projects
1.
Pipeline
Emergencies (Jeff)
2.
LNG Support to
Fire Service (Jeff)
a. White Paper
b. DVD
3.
Improved
Pipeline Operator Fire Service Communications (Stacey took lead)
a.
Work to find identified
sites for IMP
b.
Morphed into
addressing 1162 in coordinating with firefighters
iii)
Potential
additional support Energy Pipeline Repair Permitting
iv)
Q from NAPSR:
Could there be NAPSR representation and involvement? A: Have not had a
committee meeting in over a year.
v)
Q from NAPSR:
Had $500,000 grant, increased to $1.8 million?
Yes
vi)
Q from NAPSR: If
we spend more on prevention, would not that reduce the need for emergency
response? A: Cannot get more money for states, but can get this.
vii)
Pipeline
emergency project is largely done. LNG
support is largely done.
viii)
Q from NAPSR:
There is a performance contract and progress reports required. Concern that this information would be left
on shelf.
ix)
Q from NAPSR:
Limited LNG in country, would it be better to target those states that have
LNG? A: Pilot tested at actual sites where LNG is to be built.
x)
Q from NAPSR: Do
1-call grants come out of the contract bucket? A: Yes.
9)
Enforcement of
damage prevention programs will be an issue in Congress. Need to be prepared to address this
issue. Some do not have delegated
authority, others do. Some with
enforcement authority use it, some do not.
XIV OPS REPORT STATE PROGRAMS Anne Marie
Joseph, NAPSR National Liaison
1)
Resolution
Report
a)
Types
i.
Regulatory (definitions,
standards, corrosion, welding, leak surveys, EFVs, OQ)
ii.
Inspection
programs (guidelines, policies, certification, interstate)
iii.
Training (IMP,
OQ, corrosion, TSI staffing)
iv.
Funding (base
programs, one-call grants, invitational travel)
v.
Administrative (Website,
expenses)
b)
Number
vi.
77 resolutions
vii.
3 self directed
to NAPSR
viii.
64 Closed
ix.
13 Closed with
2005
x.
10 remaining
c)
Need periodic
review of outstanding resolution to determine if they are still timely
XV AGA
REPORT
1)
Lori Traweek - Re
Hurricanes
a)
Southern Gas Association
and AGA worked cooperatively to deal with crisis of hurricane
b)
When reports of
need for supplies and crews from outside of area, utilities responded
positively
c)
There are regional
mutual aid agreements, but no national mutual aid agreements.
d)
There is a need
for flexibility on OQ requirements
2)
George Mosinskis
a)
Need for affordable
energy and continued reliability.
b)
Operators have a
limited ability to control some causes of incidents
c)
Focus
enhancements in areas with greatest impact.
i) Excavation
damage incidents
ii) Enhance
leak management confidence
iii) Other
risk control practices (EFV, etc.)
d)
Addressing
minor causes
e)
Replacement
high cost
f)
Data:
i)
The dominant cause
of leaks is corrosion, but corrosion incidents very rare.
ii)
There is a decreasing
rate of reportable incidents resulting in fatalities and injuries for 13 year
period
g)
Dominant cause
of incidents excavation damage
XVI PANEL DISCUSSION ON EFVs
Seth
McKay-Smith UMAC
1)
40 years ago,
EFVs developed
2)
6.3 million sold
in the
3)
Original design,
ball and magnet
4)
Now, spring
& float
5)
Performance
standards developed
6)
1/2 inch cts 8
IPS
7)
7 wc to 1500
psig
8)
90 cfh 10,000
cfh
9)
bleed by or
positive shutoff
10)
3 factors to
sizing an EFV
a)
Minimum inlet
pressure
b)
Size or design
load of house
i)
Recommend 20%
allowance
ii)
Pressure drop
due to EFV is very low
c)
Diameter and
length
d)
Few reported
problems with sizing EFVs
11)
Operating Limits
a)
Improperly sized
b)
Contamination - ASTM F1802 contaminant test, less
than 1 problem call per 100,000 sold
c)
Design life
lifetime
d)
How many
operate? Dont know
Mike
Reed Dominion
1)
54,000 miles
distribution, WV,
2)
3)
Why?
a)
Corporate
i.
Benefits>costs
ii.
right thing to
do