{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Operator Qualification Enforcement Guidance","title":"Operator Qualification Enforcement Guidance","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-08-25","effective_on":"2016-08-25","summary":"Operator Qualification Enforcement Guidance Document OQ_Enforcement_Guidance_(8_25_2016).pdf (901.65 KB) The materials contained in this document consist of guidance, techniques, procedures and other information for internal use by the PHMSA pipeline safety enforcement staff. This guidance document describes the practices used by PHMSA pipeline safety investigators and other enforcement personnel in undertaking their","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-operator-qualification-enforcement-guidance-f1241c27.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-operator-qualification-enforcement-guidance-f1241c27.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-operator-qualification-enforcement-guidance-f1241c27","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement/operator-qualification-enforcement-guidance","body":"Operator Qualification Enforcement Guidance\n\nDocument\n\n OQ_Enforcement_Guidance_(8_25_2016).pdf (901.65 KB)\n\n        The materials contained in this document consist of guidance, techniques, procedures and other information for internal use by the PHMSA pipeline safety enforcement staff. This guidance document describes the practices used by PHMSA pipeline safety investigators and other enforcement personnel in undertaking their compliance, inspection, and enforcement activities.\n\n          Issued Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nOperator Qualification Enforcement Guidance\nIntroduction\nThe materials contained in this document consist of guidance, techniques, procedures and other information\nfor internal use by the PHMSA pipeline safety enforcement staff. This guidance document describes the\npractices used by PHMSA pipeline safety investigators and other enforcement personnel in undertaking their\ncompliance, inspection, and enforcement activities. This document is U.S. Government property and is\nto be used in conjunction with official duties.\nThe Federal pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) discussed in this guidance document\ncontains legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation and creates no new legal\nobligations. The regulation is controlling. The materials in this document are explanatory in nature and\nreflect PHMSA’s current application of the regulations in effect at the time of the issuance of the guidance.\nIn preparing an enforcement action alleging a probable violation, an allegation must always be based on the\nfailure to take a required action (or taking a prohibited action) that is set forth directly in the language of the\nregulation. An allegation should never be drafted in a manner that says the operator “violated the guidance.”\nNothing in this guidance document is intended to diminish or otherwise affect the authority of PHMSA to\ncarry out its statutory, regulatory or other official functions or to commit PHMSA to taking any action that\nis subject to its discretion. Nothing in this document is intended to and does not create any legal or\nequitable right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person or organization\nagainst PHMSA, its personnel, State agencies or officers carrying out programs authorized under Federal\nlaw.\nDecisions about specific investigations and enforcement cases are made according to the specific facts\nand circumstances at hand. Investigations and compliance determinations often require careful legal and\ntechnical analysis of complicated issues. Although this guidance document serves as a reference for the\nstaff responsible for investigations and enforcement, no set of procedures or policies can replace the need for\nactive and ongoing consultation with supervisors, colleagues, and the Office of Chief Counsel in enforcement\nmatters.\nComments and suggestions for future changes and additions to this guidance document are invited and\nshould be forwarded to your supervisor.\nThe materials in this guidance document may be modified or revoked without prior notice by PHMSA\nmanagement.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nGlossary………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2\n§§192.801 and 195.501 SCOPE…........…………………………………….………………..………..….....…. 3\n§§192.803 and 195.503 DEFINITIONS….………………………………………………………………..…...7\n§§192.805(a) and 195.505(a) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – COVERED TASKS…...…….…….………10\n§§192.805(b) and 195.505(b) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATION… .......... 14\n§§192.805(c) and 195.505(c) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – DIRECT OBSERVATION...…………..….19\n§§192.805(d) and 195.505(d) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – ACCIDENT OR INCIDENT……….….….21\n§§192.805(e) and 195.505(e) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – QUALIFICATION REVIEW………… ....... 23\n§§192.805(f) and 195.505(f) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – COMMUNICATION OF CHANGE…… ..... 25\n§§192.805(g) and 195.505(g) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – EVALUATION INTERVALS……….…...27\n§§192.805(h) and 195.505(h) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – TRAINING………………….……….……29\n§§192.805(i) and 195.505(i) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – REGULATORY NOTIFICATIONS….…...33\n§§192.807(a) and 195.507(a) RECORDKEEPING – GENERAL….…………………………………………36\n§§192.807(b) and 195.507(b) RECORDKEEPING – INDIVIDUAL RECORDS..…………………………..38\n§§192.809(a) and 195.509(a) GENERAL – PLAN COMPLIANCE DEADLINES……………………….…40\n§§192.809(b) and 195.509(b) GENERAL – EMPLOYEE DEADLINES…………….………………..……..42\n§§192.809(c) and 195.509(c) GENERAL – WORK PERFORMANCE HISTORY………………………….44\n§§192.809(d) and 195.509(d) GENERAL – WORK PERFORMANCE HISTORY…………………………46\n§§192.809(e) and 195.509(e) GENERAL – QUALIFICATION METHODS………………………….…….48\nPage 1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFor a complete “Glossary of Terms” please refer to the following\nlink: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/Pipeline/TQGlossary/Glossary\n.html\nPage 2\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nEnforcement\nGuidance\nRevision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code\nLanguage\nOrigin of Code Last Amendment\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nQualification of Pipeline Personnel\nParts 192,195\n8 25 2016\n§192.801,§195.501\nScope\n(a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator qualification\nof individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline facility.\n(b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity, identified by the\noperator, that:\n(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility;\n(2) Is an operations or maintenance task;\n(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and\n(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.\n192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\nG02-09-18\n#PI-11-061\n192,Date: 9-18-2002\nRegarding the applicability of the operator qualification regulations at 49 CFR Part\n192, Subpart N to non-company individuals replacing customer-owned service\nlines (plumbers) and whether the replacement would be considered an operations\nand maintenance task. The Interpretation asserted that service line replacement\nwith new pipe, whether by insertion or direct burial, is an operations and\nmaintenance (O&M) activity that meets the \"four part test\" in §192.801(b). The\noperator is responsible to ensure all individuals are qualified regardless of the type\nof replacement being performed and regardless of who is responsible for the\nremoved section of line.\n#PI-09-0003\n195,Date: 6-24-2009\nRegarding the training of non U.S. based employees for Operator Qualification.\nOperators must meet the OQ regulations of Part 195 for all emergency response\npersonnel who might perform manual valve closures and any other OQ covered\ntasks if responding to an emergency in the U.S.\n192,195\nDate: 1-17-2006\nAdvisory Bulletin ADB-06-01 Notification on Safe Excavation Practices and the\nuse of Qualified Personnel to oversee all Excavations and Backfilling\nOperations\nPipeline operators are to integrate the Operator Qualification regulations into their\nmarking, trenching, and backfilling operations to prevent excavation damage\nmishaps. Only qualified personnel must oversee all marking, trenching, and\nPage 3\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nGuidance\nInformation\nbackfilling operations. Furthermore, pipeline operators are reminded that although\nexcavation is not explicitly addressed in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195, excavation is\nconsidered a covered task under the pipeline operator qualifications regulations (49\nCFR 192.801-809 and 195.501-509). These regulations require that pipeline\noperators and contractors be qualified to perform pipeline excavation activities.\nPHMSA recommends pipeline operators review the adequacy of covered tasks\ninvolving line locating, one-call notifications, and inspection of excavation\nactivities. Operators should also review the adequacy of required training, evaluation\nand qualification methods for each of these covered tasks to ensure that each\nemployee and contractor is qualified to perform that task.\n192,195\nDate: 11/22/2006\nAdvisory Bulletin ADB-06-03 Accurately Locating and Marking Underground\nPipelines Before Construction-Related Excavation Activities Commence Near\nthe Pipelines.\nOperators were reminded to use qualified personnel for locating and marking\npipelines. Specific to operator qualification, the following were required:\n Make sure that individuals locating and marking the pipelines have the\nknowledge, skills, and abilities to read and understand pipeline alignment\nand as-built drawings, and that they know what other buried utilities exist in\nthe construction area.\n Use qualified personnel for locating and marking pipelines. At a minimum,\nthey should have received appropriate training such as that outlined in the\nNational Utility Locating Contractors Association locator training standards\nand practices.\n Operators should use the full range of safe locating excavation practices. In\nparticular, pipeline operators should ensure the use of qualified personnel to\naccurately locate and mark the location of its underground pipelines.\nOQ Final Rule preamble, August 27, 1999. The OQ Final Rule preamble does not\naddress emergency response personnel who do not perform covered tasks. The OQ\nFinal Rule preamble states, “The rule applies only to personnel performing\noperations and maintenance activities.” (64 FR46856).\nHurricane Sandy: Emergency Assistance from Canadian Personnel Letter, dated\nNovember 1, 2012. In this letter, PHMSA did not object to the NJ Board of Public\nUtilities and NY Public Service Commission granting a request from intrastate\noperators for emergency waivers – provided the waiver was limited to the duration\nof the emergency, not to exceed 30 days (with potential extensions). The request for\nwaiver was from the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, Subpart N Qualification of\nPipeline Personnel.\n192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q\n1. The same requirements apply whether the Operator Qualification program is a\nself - developed or purchased plan and if the operator uses its own employees\nPage 4\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\nExamples of\nEvidence\nOther Special\nNotations\nor contractors to perform covered tasks.\n2. There will be some covered tasks that are part of an emergency response\nactivity. Pipeline locating and marking are required to be covered as part of\nthe task list.\n3. The performance of certain O&M activities during an emergency – such as\nmanipulating valves – meets the four part test, and is a “covered task.”\nTherefore, the individual(s) performing these tasks – during an emergency –\nmust be qualified.\n1. The operator’s qualification procedures did not address the four part test\nfor identifying covered tasks.\n2. The operator purchased an operator qualification program, but did not\nvalidate the plan to match their operations.\n3. The operator did not include/identify all of the covered tasks for their\npipeline operations. Examples, contractor and/or subcontractor performed\ntasks.\n4. Operator did not use a qualified individual for emergency response for\ntasks that met the four part test, i.e. valve operation.\n5. Operator did not include pipeline line locating and marking as a covered\ntask.\n6. The written operator qualification program does not identify certain O&M\nactivities – that when performed during an emergency – are covered tasks.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may\nbe inadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and\nnot a Notice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the\nEnforcement Procedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate\nenforcement action.\n1. Copy of written qualification program or applicable portion that shows\nomission or deficiency in the plan.\n2. Operator records.\n3. Contractors performing work on regulated sections of pipe without\nqualification plan approved or employees qualified under the operator’s\noperator qualification plan.\n4. Documented conversations with operator or contractor personnel performing a\ncovered task without qualification or direct supervision.\nIf an activity fails to meet any one of the four criteria, the activity is not considered a\ncovered task under this final rule. The following are hypothetical examples (taken directly\nfrom the OQ Final Rule dated August 27, 1999 (64 FR46860) of how the four part test can\nbe used to identify a covered task:\nExample 1: Leakage surveys on gas transmission pipelines.\n(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, because leakage surveys are performed\nimmediately above the pipeline and on the pipeline right-of-way.\n(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, leakage surveys are conducted in the course\nof pipeline operations and maintenance activities.\n(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, leakage surveys are required by 49 CFR\n192.706 and 192.723.\nPage 5\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes, if a leakage survey is not properly\nconducted, a leak might not be detected, resulting in a potentially hazardous situation. Since\nall four criteria are met, the leakage survey is a covered task.\nExample 2: Measuring pipe-to-soil potentials.\n(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, pipe-to-soil potentials are measured at cathodic\ntest stations attached directly to the pipeline.\n(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, pipe-to-soil potentials are read in the course\nof pipeline operations and maintenance activities.\n(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, pipe-to-soil potential measurements are\nrequired by 49 CFR 192.465 and 195.416.\n(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes, pipe-to-soil potential\nmeasurements, if taken improperly, will not accurately reflect the level of cathodic\nprotection being provided. While not affecting the immediate operation of the pipeline, the\nfuture integrity of the pipeline might be jeopardized (for example, corrosion might develop),\nif inadequate cathodic protection is applied to the pipeline over a period of time. Since all\nfour criteria are met, the measurement of pipe-to-soil potentials is a covered task.\nExample 3: Meter reading.\n(1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, a meter is a part of a pipeline facility.\n(2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, meters are read in the course of pipeline\noperations and maintenance activities.\n(3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? No, meter reading is not a requirement of 49\nCFR part 192 or part 195.\n(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? No, meter reading has no impact on\npipeline operation or integrity. Because meter reading fails at least one of the four\ncriteria, meter reading is not considered a covered task.\nIn identifying covered tasks, operators must consider specific activities and not necessarily\nthe job classification of individuals performing the activities, because each job classification\nmay incorporate several activities. For example, an individual with the job classification,\n‘‘meter reader,’’ may be assigned activities other than reading a meter, such as distribution\nline patrolling under 49 CFR Part 192.721, that could be covered tasks.\nPage 6\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nEnforcement\nGuidance\nRevision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code\nLanguage\nOrigin of Code Last Amendment Interpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nQualification of Pipeline Personnel\nParts 192,195\n8 25 2016\n§192.803,§195.503\nDefinitions\nAbnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the operator that\nmay indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation from normal operations\nthat may:\n(a) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or\n(b) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment.\nEvaluation means a process, established and documented by the operator, to\ndetermine an individual's ability to perform a covered task by any of the following:\n(a) Written examination;\n(b) Oral examination;\n(c) Work performance history review;\n(d) Observation during:\n(1) Performance on the job,\n(2) On the job training, or\n(3) Simulations;\n(e) Other forms of assessment.\nQualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:\n(a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and\n(b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.\n192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n192-90, 66 FR 43523, Aug. 20, 2001\n195-72, 66 FR 43523, Aug. 20, 2001\n192,195\nDate: 12/7/2009\nAdvisory Bulletin ADB-09-03 Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification (OQ)\nProgram Modifications\nInforms pipeline operators about the standardized notification process for operator\nqualification (OQ) plan transmittal from the operator to PHMSA; about the addition\nto PHMSA's glossary of definitions of the terms “Observation of on-the-job\nperformance'' as applicable to determining employee qualification and “Significant''\nas applicable to OQ program modifications requiring notification; and lastly about\nclarifications to assist operators to ensure OQ reviews are being done in conjunction\nwith O&M reviews.\nThe definitions of on the job performance and significant contained in Advisory\nBulletin ADB-09-03 are intended to be advisory in nature. The definitions\nPage 7\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\ncontained in the Advisory Bulletin are not enforceable.\nOther Reference\n192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q\nMaterial\n& Source\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. Operators are required to have a written qualification program that includes\ndefinitions of the terms in this section as well as how these terms apply within\ntheir pipeline operations.\n2. Definitions included in the Operator’s OQ plan must be consistent with those\nfound in this section, i.e. §192.803,§195.503.\n3. The Operator should note in its written OQ plan that although terms pre-\ndefined in the pipeline safety regulations e.g. Abnormal Operating Condition\n(AOC), Evaluation, Qualified, etc., may appear in the Operator’s OQ plan, the\nplan should also include (where applicable) those terms that are unique to the\nOperator’s particular pipeline system. The OQ plan should also note that the\nOperator’s application of terms – whether unique to its pipeline system or pre-\ndefined in the pipeline safety regulations – must be applied by the Operator as\nrequired in its OQ plan.\n4. The terms, while necessary to be consistent with the regulations, are not to be\nreplicated in the written qualification program.\n5. In developing the definition of an AOC, operators must identify conditions\nthat would be reasonably recognizable by an individual performing a covered\ntask.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The written qualification program does not include definitions for abnormal\noperating conditions, evaluations, or qualified as they apply within the\noperator’s daily operations and maintenance activities.\n2. The written qualification program does not apply these terms to the operations\nfor the particular pipeline system.\n3. The definitions were not consistent with the type of operations conducted by\nthe operator.\n4. The definitions were not consistent with the language in the regulation.\n5. The operator did not provide for the differences between the types of\nevaluation methods and how/when they will be applied.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may\nbe inadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not\na Notice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the\nEnforcement Procedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate\nenforcement action.\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. Copy of written qualification program or applicable portion that shows\nomission or deficiency in the plan.\n2. Documented conversations with operator personnel who are charged with\nestablishing the plan.\n3. Operator records.\nOther Special\nNotations\nThe definitions of on the job performance and significant contained in Advisory\nBulletin ADB-09-03 are intended to be advisory in nature. The definitions\nPage 8\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\ncontained in the Advisory Bulletin are not enforceable.\nPage 9\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nEnforcement\nGuidance\nRevision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code\nLanguage\nOrigin of Code Last Amendment\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nGuidance\nInformation\nQualification of Pipeline Personnel\nParts 192,195\n8 25 2016\n§192.805(a),§195.505(a)\nQualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q\n1. Pipeline operators were required to have a written OQ program in place by\nApril 27, 2001, and to have completed the qualification of individuals\nperforming covered tasks by October 28, 2002.\n2. Operator’s plan must cover the requirements to perform covered tasks on its\npipeline facilities. Each operator shall have a list of covered tasks and the\nmethods used to identify the covered tasks.\n3. Some covered tasks are identified in consensus standards – which are\nincorporated by reference.\n4. The operator’s plan must address the unique and task specific operations,\nmaintenance, and repair tasks performed on their pipeline system. Therefore,\nin the event an operator transports natural gas and hazardous liquids, the\noperator is required to identity each covered task and the qualification\nrequirements for personnel that are unique to the specific operations\nmaintenance, and repair of its natural gas, as well as its hazardous liquids\npipeline system. The list of covered tasks should be tailored to encompass\nthose operations, maintenance, and repair tasks used by the operator.\n5. In the event an Operator transports multiple commodities through its pipeline\nsystem, it is suggested that the Operator’s covered tasks list clearly identify\nthe commodity to which the covered tasks applies, e.g. “L” for Hazardous\nLiquids or “G” for Natural Gas. In those instances where a covered task is\nidentical – regardless of the commodity transported e.g. pipe-to-soil readings\n– such a distinction may not be necessary.\nPage 10\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\n6. Operators’ program should also note that covered tasks performed on\n‘transmission’ pipelines may be unique and distinct from those performed on\n‘distribution’ pipelines.\n7. The written operator qualification plan can be an off the shelf program, a\nconsultant or consortium prepared plan, or a plan developed by the operator.\n8. The operator may also use contractors and other third parties and these same\nrequirements would apply to the contractors and third parties performing\ncovered tasks on the pipeline.\n9. The Operator’s plan must ensure that qualified persons have been evaluated\nand are capable of performing the assigned covered tasks; and recognize and\nreact to abnormal operating conditions.\n10. Plains Pipeline, L.P., [4-2009-5005] (Final Order - April 6. 2010) Found that\nthe operator failed to identify the covered tasks of installing, inspecting, and\nmaintaining its Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor (VpCI) system. The VpCI system\nwas a proprietary system that a vendor had installed and tested. The Final\nOrder ruled that even though there are instances in which a pipeline\ncontractor may contract for the performance of specialized services for which\ncompany personnel do not have subject-matter expertise, §195.505(a) still\nrequires the pipeline operator to identify the covered tasks that will be\nperformed and to ensure that persons performing such tasks are capable of\nperforming the task; there is no difference between tasks performed by third-\nparty contractors or pipeline employees. CP, CO.\n11. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., [4-2005-8004] (Final Order - Aug. 22,\n2007) Found that the operator failed to specifically identify each covered task\nperformed on its hazardous liquid pipeline system including the abnormal\noperating conditions associated with each task. The operator qualification\nprogram at issue in the case stated that the covered tasks identified for natural\ngas pipelines could also be used to qualify individuals performing tasks on\nhazardous liquid pipelines. The Final Order ruled that it is not sufficient for\nthe operator to identify covered tasks performed on its natural gas pipelines\nand then assume those same tasks and abnormal operating conditions are\ntransferable to hazardous liquid pipelines. CP.\n12. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC [CPF 1-2011-5008] (Consent\nAgreement and Order – July 17, 2013) This case was settled. The Operator\nagreed to complete the corrective actions specified in Section II (Work to be\nPerformed) of the Consent Agreement and Order. During its field review, the\nPHMSA inspector noted that KM failed to identify tank painting or the\napplication of coatings and their repair as a covered task in its written\nqualification program. By way of this Consent Agreement and Order, KM\nagreed to adequately identify and list in its written Operations Qualification\nprogram tank painting as a covered task. CO, CP.\n13. Enterprise Products Operating, LLC., [3-2009-5022] (Final Order - Aug. 14,\n2012) Found that the operator failed to properly identify pipefitting as a covered\ntask, when performed while making a repair to its pipeline involving the installation\nof a threaded connection. The Final Order ruled that the OQ regulations require\nOperators to identify covered task for all of their operations and maintenance\nactivities that are required by sections 192.805(a) and 195.505(a), regardless of\nwhether such activities arise from performance-based regulations or from more\nprescriptive requirements; and Operators must recognize that other critical activities\nPage 11\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nmay be covered tasks. Covered tasks do not only include those activities that a re\nspecifically regulated by Parts 192 and 195, but also those activities that are\nperformance-based. Each Operator needs to review its own operations and\nmaintenance activities in light of the regulatory requirements to determine whether a\ntask – such as pipefitting – is an integral component of meeting such requirements,\nand whether the task satisfies each prong of the four-part test. If so, the Operator\nshould include and identify that activity as a covered task. CP, CO.\n14. Marathon Pipe Line, LLC [4-2010-5013] (Consent Agreement and Order –\nMay 11, 2012) This case was settled. The Operator agreed that it would\nincorporate the installation and operation of bentonite mud plugs as a vapor\nbarrier to isolate hazardous vapors as a covered task(s) in its operator\nqualification (OQ) program. The Operator also agreed to introduce training to\nensure that individuals performing this covered task(s) have the necessary\nknowledge and skills to perform the task(s). CO, CP\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The operator or contractor has no written operator qualification program.\n2. The written operator qualification program duplicates the language in the\ncode sections and is not written specific to the operations.\n3. The written operator qualification program was not specific for natural gas or\nhazardous liquids pipeline facilities.\n4. The written operator qualification program does not include a specific list of\ncovered tasks.\n5. The operator did not include/identify all of the covered tasks for their pipeline\noperations. Examples, contractor and/or subcontractor performed tasks.\n6. The written operator qualification program does not include a requirement for\napplication of the four-part test to all covered tasks.\n7. There is no documentation using the four-part test by the operator to define\ncovered tasks, or identify tasks performed that do not meet the four-part test.\n8. The written operator qualification program does not define new construction\nor O&M activities.\n9. The written operator qualification program does not identify all applicable\ncovered tasks as required by the operator qualification rule. Some examples\ninclude: excavation activities performed by company personnel, regulator\ninstallation/replacement, odorizing gas, odorant sampling, pipeline patrolling,\nleak survey, cathodic protection of metal portions of distribution system,\npipeline marking, welding on steel pipeline, pipeline repair, line replacement,\nvalve maintenance, backfilling, maintaining hazardous vapor detection\nsystem, maintaining operating SCADA equipment, pipefitting of screw-type\nfittings or small valves, integrity management tasks (e.g., launching and\nreceiving pigs), purging of gas pipelines, service line installations, service line\nrepair, start up and shut down of a pipeline, NDT of welds (for repair and on\noperating lines), operating main-line valves, breakout tank static protection\n(line velocity), , prevention of microbiological induced corrosion (MIC), e.g.\nin-line inspection, close interval survey, jeeping pipeline for damaged or\ndisbanded coating, repair methods, etc.\n10. The operator did not identify additions, revisions, or deletions of covered\ntasks.\n11. The operator did not implement the requirements of the written operator\nqualification program.\nPage 12\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may\nbe inadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not\na Notice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the\nEnforcement Procedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate\nenforcement action.\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. No written qualification program.\n2. Copy of written qualification program or applicable portion that shows omission\nor deficiency in the plan.\n3. Documented conversations with operator personnel who are charged with\nidentifying covered tasks within the plan.\n4. Written covered task list.\n5. Records of development for the covered task list.\n6. Four part test verification for all listed covered tasks.\nOther Special\nNotations\nSome distribution operators were granted a waiver for compliance with the\nqualification of employees. For plumbers replacing customer owned service lines in\nboth the State of Pennsylvania and the State of Ohio waivers were granted and\nreceived PHMSA approval to allow for extended time periods for compliance for\nqualification of plumbers replacing customer owned service lines.\nPage 13\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nEnforcement\nGuidance\nRevision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code\nLanguage\nOrigin of Code Last Amendment\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nGuidance\nInformation\nQualification of Pipeline Personnel\nParts 192, 195\n8 25 2016\n§192.805(b),§195.505(b)\nQualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified;\n192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999\n192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q\n1. Operators have the opportunity to use company employees, contractors, and\nother subcontracted parties to conduct activities that are considered “covered\ntasks” on their pipeline facilities.\n2. All individuals performing covered tasks are required to be initially qualified\nthrough evaluation.\n3. The operator is required to qualify the tasks using the company program or\nensure that the other contracted parties are initially qualified in accordance\nwith the regulations.\n4. Operator must ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified. In addition, “qualified” means the individuals can (a)\nperformed the assigned covered tasks; and (b) recognize and react to AOCs.\nTherefore, if an individual is unable to “perform” the assigned covered tasks,\nthen by definition, the individual is not qualified.\n5. “Actual performance” of the tasks must be part of the Operator’s evaluation to\ndetermine if an individual is qualified to perform the assigned covered tasks.\nAn Operators’ knowledge evaluations must be based on actual on the job\nperformance of the covered tasks.\n6. ENSTAR Natural Gas Co., [5-2004-0003] (Final Order - April 28, 2009)\nFound that operator violated § 192.805(b) because ENSTAR employees were\nnot able to recognize and react to AOCs that may occur. During the\nPage 14\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\ninspection, Respondent’s Control Center personnel were questioned by the\nOPS Inspection team and could not properly recognize excursions above\nMAOP as AOCs. The Final Order determined that Control Center personnel\nmust be able to readily identify excursions from MAOP as AOCs in order to\naddress quickly and properly these potentially dangerous conditions. CP.\n7. West Texas Gas, Inc., [CPF 4-2005-1015] (Final Order - Mar. 31, 2008)\nFound that the operator violated § 192.805(b) because the operator’s written\nqualification program only identified generic abnormal operating conditions\n(AOCs), but did not include provisions that identified task-specific AOCs for\neach covered task. The operator cited OPS guidance FAQ 4.3 in support of\nits contention that identification of task-specific AOCs is optional. The Final\nOrder ruled that FAQ 4.3 and the text of the regulation are consistent with\neach other, and that the regulation requires operators to identify both task-\nspecific and generic AOCs. CP.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\nGeneral\n1. The operator or contractor has no written operator qualification program.\n2. The written operator qualification program duplicates the language in the\ncode sections and is not written specific to the operations.\n3. The written operator qualification program does not contain criteria for\nevaluating the qualifications of individuals performing covered tasks.\n4. The written operator qualification program does not identify any AOCs.\n5. The written operator qualification program does not identify both generic\nand task specific AOCs.\n6. The written operator qualification program and evaluation materials\nidentify generic and task specific AOCs, but do not address the required\nreactions to the generic and task specific AOCs.\n7. Operators do not evaluate individuals on AOC recognition and reaction.\n8. Operators do not have documentation showing evaluation of qualified\nindividuals for recognition and reaction to AOCs.\n9. Operator documentation demonstrates evaluation for AOC recognition and\nreaction, but field inspection of individuals performing covered tasks\nreveals unfamiliarity with subject.\n10. Operators include AOC evaluation for employees, but do not ensure AOC\nevaluation for contractor individuals.\n11. Operators do not include generic and task specific AOC evaluation as a\npart of the periodic re-evaluation process for covered tasks.\n12. Operators do not implement the written operator qualification program\nrequirements for evaluation and qualification of individuals.\n13. The operator did not implement the requirements of the written operator\nqualification program.\nCompany Employees\n14. Operators do not document the evaluation methods used for qualification\nor re-qualification (re-evaluation for qualification).\n15. Operators do not document that individuals have been evaluated for\ngeneric and task specific AOC recognition and reaction.\n16. Operators qualify individuals by observation of work that is not specific to\nthe individual or the covered task being performed.\n17. Operators have individuals performing covered tasks that have not been\nPage 15\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nqualified for those tasks. This can also be due to operator failure to\ncorrectly identify their covered tasks (e.g., identifying main replacement as\nnew construction).\n18. Operators have irregularities with evaluation records that leave the\nqualification of individuals in doubt. Examples are: use of the exam key\nfor the written exam with the correct answers bolded and italicized; re-\nmarking of exams by the individual to make a 100% score following\nreview rather than re-taking the exam; welding being performed with a\nweld rod size for which the individual is not qualified.\n19. The operator used a meeting sign-in sheet as the sole record of\nqualification for employees of the company.\n20. The written operator qualification program does not identify task-specific\nevaluation methods used to initially qualify individuals.\n21. The written operator qualification program does not identify how or by\nwhat methods individuals will become initially qualified.\n22. Operators allow individuals who have not been evaluated and qualified to\nperform covered tasks.\n23. The Operator did not document that the individual performing the covered\ntasks had been evaluated and qualified.\n24. Operators do not ensure through evaluation that individuals performing\ncovered tasks are qualified and possess the task-specific knowledge, skills,\nand ability to perform the assigned covered tasks, and to recognize and\nreact to abnormal operating conditions. Examples are use of knowledge-\nonly testing for all tasks, use of performance evaluations without\ninteraction to ensure the knowledge level of the individual performing the\ntask, or use of one knowledge test to qualify individuals for all tasks.\n25. Operators do not perform any evaluations for qualification of individuals\nperforming covered tasks.\n26. Evaluators do not possess the required knowledge to ascertain an\nindividual's ability to perform covered tasks and to substantiate an\nindividual's ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal\noperating conditions that might occur while performing these activities.\n27. The evaluation process is not objective and consistent. That is to say, the\nprocess does not ensure that evaluators are knowledgeable about the\nsubject tasks in order to conduct effective evaluations.\n28. Supervisors and or foreman are not qualified although they are performing\ncovered tasks and or serving as the individual assigned to direct and\nobserve an unqualified person performing covered tasks.\n29. Operators allow the following to be performed during the evaluation\nprocess: two individuals evaluated and qualified each other based on the\nknowledge of each that the other had been performing the task successfully\nin the past (commonly referred to as a \"brother-in-law\" process, and\namounts to work performance history review, which is not allowed as a\nsingle evaluation method), some individuals performed evaluations and\nwere (a) not qualified to do the work themselves; (b) were not subject\nmatter experts (SMEs) in that subject; and (c) were not provided a \"script\"\nto go by during the evaluation (such as a corrosion tech was evaluated by\nsomeone who was not himself a corrosion tech).\nPage 16\n\n<<<PAGE 18>>>\n\n30. In a one-on-one performance evaluation, \"group\" performance evaluations\nwere employed rather than “individual” or “hands-on” tests. “Group”\nperformance evaluations do not ensure each individual is qualified;\nevaluator failed to initial the subtasks as required by the Operator’s\nprocedures.\n31. Field inspections indicate that individuals performing covered tasks are\ninadequately qualified (such as O&M procedures were inadequate,\nmaterials for repair were not suitable for the service intended, employees\nwere not following proper gas distribution practices, missed procedure\nsteps, incorrect use of equipment, unfamiliar with operation of equipment\nbeing used, incorrect result when performing task).\n32. Operators do not have supporting documentation, such as evaluation\nrecords, for qualification of individuals that perform covered tasks.\n33. Operators do not ensure that knowledge tests are consistent with O&M\nprocedures or operator practices.\n34. The written program does not include a process for ensuring operator\nqualification, evaluations, and performance of covered tasks during the\nmerge","truncated":true,"body_characters":103138}