OSC 2007 Evaluation Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2007 OSC Readiness Training Program Evaluation Report Inspection and Integrity Testing of Tanks and Piping Instructors: Gary Boley, InterSpec, LLC Mark Howard, EPA OEM This course was geared toward personnel conducting SPCC and Facility Response Plan inspections. The course also was of use to OSCs who conduct site work associated with the petroleum sectors (upstream and downstream). By taking this course, participants achieved the following objectives: • Obtained a summary of tank types, components, and associated construction standards. • Obtained an overview of the applicable industry standards for inspection and testing of aboveground, shop-built, and field-erected tanks (including API 653, API RP 12 R1, and STI SP001); and piping (aboveground and buried). Inspection and testing of buried and partially buried tanks are discussed, as well as corrosion issues. • Gained an understanding of additional concepts such as “hybrid” testing methodologies, tank baselining, and re-rating of tank capacity. • Explored specific items for which SPCC inspectors should look for during an SPCC inspection to evaluate whether a facility meets inspection and integrity testing requirements — for example, correct documentation and record keeping plus verification of up-to-date inspections according to a regular schedule as described in the SPCC plan. The course was taught by a certified tank inspector. The course was recommended for OSCs or any person who conducts SPCC inspections or for OSCs involved with response actions associated with the petroleum sector. Participation and Average Grade Number of Participants Who Pre-registered Number of Participants Who Signed Course Roster Number of Evaluation Forms Submitted Average Grade 43 39 26 4* * The grade displayed is the average of the grades provided on the evaluation forms, where 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very Good, and 5 = Excellent. Summary of Evaluation Results 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Overall, the presentation of the course was appropriate for my level of experience. The content of the course is relevant to my job responsibilities. The course had a good balance of lecture material, visual aids, case studies, and discussion time. The handout materials were clear, legible, and helpful. The course materials will be useful as a reference for my job. This course should continue to be offered at future training programs. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A C-69 Comments about Individual Training Courses
2007 OSC Readiness Training Program Evaluation Report The pie chart below illustrates the percentages of students for the training course by job title. EPA OSCs and other regional removal and emergency response support staff represented 58 percent of the students. Five members of the RSC attended this course. Participants by Job Title Local Responders, 3% (1) Other Federal Agency Representatives, 16% (6) EPA OSCs, 39% (15) State Representatives, 13% (5) EPA Removal Managers, 3% (1) Other EPA Regional Removal Staff, 18% (7) EPA HQ Representatives, 8% (3) Summarized below are the written comments provided on the evaluation forms. Similar observations have been combined and paraphrased. Comments on course relevance to job responsibilities • This course did not specifically relate to my current job but gave me a better understanding of the start to finish process of tank removal. • Generally most OSCs do not perform SPCC inspections, but they may get involved with them on occasion. That was my main reason for taking this class. (Two responses) Comments on course content • Great course! • Good overview of information. (Three responses) • Maybe have an OSC provide a case example or explain how he/she gets involved in this work. • Course was heavily geared to the type of inspection unlikely to be conducted by an OSC with limited SPCC involvement. (Two responses) • Consider looking at actual inspection reports to find issues we would want to follow up on as EPA inspectors. (Two responses) • It would be interesting if a mini tank could be brought in and a mock inspection completed. • This material was presented at a more advanced level than I expected. (Three responses) • Include more case studies. (Six responses) • Too many numeric standard references. • The information presented was too EPA specific. (Two responses) C-70 Comments about Individual Training Courses
Page 1 and 2:
On-Scene Coordinator Readiness Trai
Page 3 and 4:
2007 OSC Readiness Training Program
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74: 2007 OSC Readiness Training Program
Page 123: 2007 OSC Readiness Training Program
Page 175 and 176:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
show all

OSC 2007 Evaluation Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?