# Operator Qualification Enforcement Guidance - **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 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 compliance, inspection, and enforcement activities. Issued Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016 <<>> Operator Qualification Enforcement Guidance Introduction 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. This document is U.S. Government property and is to be used in conjunction with official duties. The Federal pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) discussed in this guidance document contains legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation and creates no new legal obligations. The regulation is controlling. The materials in this document are explanatory in nature and reflect PHMSA’s current application of the regulations in effect at the time of the issuance of the guidance. In preparing an enforcement action alleging a probable violation, an allegation must always be based on the failure to take a required action (or taking a prohibited action) that is set forth directly in the language of the regulation. An allegation should never be drafted in a manner that says the operator “violated the guidance.” Nothing in this guidance document is intended to diminish or otherwise affect the authority of PHMSA to carry out its statutory, regulatory or other official functions or to commit PHMSA to taking any action that is subject to its discretion. Nothing in this document is intended to and does not create any legal or equitable right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person or organization against PHMSA, its personnel, State agencies or officers carrying out programs authorized under Federal law. Decisions about specific investigations and enforcement cases are made according to the specific facts and circumstances at hand. Investigations and compliance determinations often require careful legal and technical analysis of complicated issues. Although this guidance document serves as a reference for the staff responsible for investigations and enforcement, no set of procedures or policies can replace the need for active and ongoing consultation with supervisors, colleagues, and the Office of Chief Counsel in enforcement matters. Comments and suggestions for future changes and additions to this guidance document are invited and should be forwarded to your supervisor. The materials in this guidance document may be modified or revoked without prior notice by PHMSA management. <<>> TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2 §§192.801 and 195.501 SCOPE…........…………………………………….………………..………..….....…. 3 §§192.803 and 195.503 DEFINITIONS….………………………………………………………………..…...7 §§192.805(a) and 195.505(a) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – COVERED TASKS…...…….…….………10 §§192.805(b) and 195.505(b) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATION… .......... 14 §§192.805(c) and 195.505(c) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – DIRECT OBSERVATION...…………..….19 §§192.805(d) and 195.505(d) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – ACCIDENT OR INCIDENT……….….….21 §§192.805(e) and 195.505(e) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – QUALIFICATION REVIEW………… ....... 23 §§192.805(f) and 195.505(f) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – COMMUNICATION OF CHANGE…… ..... 25 §§192.805(g) and 195.505(g) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – EVALUATION INTERVALS……….…...27 §§192.805(h) and 195.505(h) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – TRAINING………………….……….……29 §§192.805(i) and 195.505(i) QUALIFICATION PROGRAM – REGULATORY NOTIFICATIONS….…...33 §§192.807(a) and 195.507(a) RECORDKEEPING – GENERAL….…………………………………………36 §§192.807(b) and 195.507(b) RECORDKEEPING – INDIVIDUAL RECORDS..…………………………..38 §§192.809(a) and 195.509(a) GENERAL – PLAN COMPLIANCE DEADLINES……………………….…40 §§192.809(b) and 195.509(b) GENERAL – EMPLOYEE DEADLINES…………….………………..……..42 §§192.809(c) and 195.509(c) GENERAL – WORK PERFORMANCE HISTORY………………………….44 §§192.809(d) and 195.509(d) GENERAL – WORK PERFORMANCE HISTORY…………………………46 §§192.809(e) and 195.509(e) GENERAL – QUALIFICATION METHODS………………………….…….48 Page 1 <<>> For a complete “Glossary of Terms” please refer to the following link: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/Pipeline/TQGlossary/Glossary .html Page 2 <<>> Enforcement Guidance Revision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code Language Origin of Code Last Amendment Interpretation Summaries Advisory Bulletin/Alert Notice Summaries Qualification of Pipeline Personnel Parts 192,195 8 25 2016 §192.801,§195.501 Scope (a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator qualification of individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline facility. (b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity, identified by the operator, that: (1) Is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) Is an operations or maintenance task; (3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline. 192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 G02-09-18 #PI-11-061 192,Date: 9-18-2002 Regarding the applicability of the operator qualification regulations at 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart N to non-company individuals replacing customer-owned service lines (plumbers) and whether the replacement would be considered an operations and maintenance task. The Interpretation asserted that service line replacement with new pipe, whether by insertion or direct burial, is an operations and maintenance (O&M) activity that meets the "four part test" in §192.801(b). The operator is responsible to ensure all individuals are qualified regardless of the type of replacement being performed and regardless of who is responsible for the removed section of line. #PI-09-0003 195,Date: 6-24-2009 Regarding the training of non U.S. based employees for Operator Qualification. Operators must meet the OQ regulations of Part 195 for all emergency response personnel who might perform manual valve closures and any other OQ covered tasks if responding to an emergency in the U.S. 192,195 Date: 1-17-2006 Advisory Bulletin ADB-06-01 Notification on Safe Excavation Practices and the use of Qualified Personnel to oversee all Excavations and Backfilling Operations Pipeline operators are to integrate the Operator Qualification regulations into their marking, trenching, and backfilling operations to prevent excavation damage mishaps. Only qualified personnel must oversee all marking, trenching, and Page 3 <<>> Other Reference Material & Source Guidance Information backfilling operations. Furthermore, pipeline operators are reminded that although excavation is not explicitly addressed in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195, excavation is considered a covered task under the pipeline operator qualifications regulations (49 CFR 192.801-809 and 195.501-509). These regulations require that pipeline operators and contractors be qualified to perform pipeline excavation activities. PHMSA recommends pipeline operators review the adequacy of covered tasks involving line locating, one-call notifications, and inspection of excavation activities. Operators should also review the adequacy of required training, evaluation and qualification methods for each of these covered tasks to ensure that each employee and contractor is qualified to perform that task. 192,195 Date: 11/22/2006 Advisory Bulletin ADB-06-03 Accurately Locating and Marking Underground Pipelines Before Construction-Related Excavation Activities Commence Near the Pipelines. Operators were reminded to use qualified personnel for locating and marking pipelines. Specific to operator qualification, the following were required:  Make sure that individuals locating and marking the pipelines have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to read and understand pipeline alignment and as-built drawings, and that they know what other buried utilities exist in the construction area.  Use qualified personnel for locating and marking pipelines. At a minimum, they should have received appropriate training such as that outlined in the National Utility Locating Contractors Association locator training standards and practices.  Operators should use the full range of safe locating excavation practices. In particular, pipeline operators should ensure the use of qualified personnel to accurately locate and mark the location of its underground pipelines. OQ Final Rule preamble, August 27, 1999. The OQ Final Rule preamble does not address emergency response personnel who do not perform covered tasks. The OQ Final Rule preamble states, “The rule applies only to personnel performing operations and maintenance activities.” (64 FR46856). Hurricane Sandy: Emergency Assistance from Canadian Personnel Letter, dated November 1, 2012. In this letter, PHMSA did not object to the NJ Board of Public Utilities and NY Public Service Commission granting a request from intrastate operators for emergency waivers – provided the waiver was limited to the duration of the emergency, not to exceed 30 days (with potential extensions). The request for waiver was from the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, Subpart N Qualification of Pipeline Personnel. 192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q 1. The same requirements apply whether the Operator Qualification program is a self - developed or purchased plan and if the operator uses its own employees Page 4 <<>> Examples of a Probable Violation or Inadequate Procedures Examples of Evidence Other Special Notations or contractors to perform covered tasks. 2. There will be some covered tasks that are part of an emergency response activity. Pipeline locating and marking are required to be covered as part of the task list. 3. The performance of certain O&M activities during an emergency – such as manipulating valves – meets the four part test, and is a “covered task.” Therefore, the individual(s) performing these tasks – during an emergency – must be qualified. 1. The operator’s qualification procedures did not address the four part test for identifying covered tasks. 2. The operator purchased an operator qualification program, but did not validate the plan to match their operations. 3. The operator did not include/identify all of the covered tasks for their pipeline operations. Examples, contractor and/or subcontractor performed tasks. 4. Operator did not use a qualified individual for emergency response for tasks that met the four part test, i.e. valve operation. 5. Operator did not include pipeline line locating and marking as a covered task. 6. The written operator qualification program does not identify certain O&M activities – that when performed during an emergency – are covered tasks. Depending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be inadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the enforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a Notice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement Procedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action. 1. Copy of written qualification program or applicable portion that shows omission or deficiency in the plan. 2. Operator records. 3. Contractors performing work on regulated sections of pipe without qualification plan approved or employees qualified under the operator’s operator qualification plan. 4. Documented conversations with operator or contractor personnel performing a covered task without qualification or direct supervision. If an activity fails to meet any one of the four criteria, the activity is not considered a covered task under this final rule. The following are hypothetical examples (taken directly from the OQ Final Rule dated August 27, 1999 (64 FR46860) of how the four part test can be used to identify a covered task: Example 1: Leakage surveys on gas transmission pipelines. (1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, because leakage surveys are performed immediately above the pipeline and on the pipeline right-of-way. (2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, leakage surveys are conducted in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance activities. (3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, leakage surveys are required by 49 CFR 192.706 and 192.723. Page 5 <<>> (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes, if a leakage survey is not properly conducted, a leak might not be detected, resulting in a potentially hazardous situation. Since all four criteria are met, the leakage survey is a covered task. Example 2: Measuring pipe-to-soil potentials. (1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, pipe-to-soil potentials are measured at cathodic test stations attached directly to the pipeline. (2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, pipe-to-soil potentials are read in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance activities. (3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? Yes, pipe-to-soil potential measurements are required by 49 CFR 192.465 and 195.416. (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? Yes, pipe-to-soil potential measurements, if taken improperly, will not accurately reflect the level of cathodic protection being provided. While not affecting the immediate operation of the pipeline, the future integrity of the pipeline might be jeopardized (for example, corrosion might develop), if inadequate cathodic protection is applied to the pipeline over a period of time. Since all four criteria are met, the measurement of pipe-to-soil potentials is a covered task. Example 3: Meter reading. (1) Performed on a pipeline facility? Yes, a meter is a part of a pipeline facility. (2) Is an operations and maintenance task? Yes, meters are read in the course of pipeline operations and maintenance activities. (3) Is performed as a requirement of this part? No, meter reading is not a requirement of 49 CFR part 192 or part 195. (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline? No, meter reading has no impact on pipeline operation or integrity. Because meter reading fails at least one of the four criteria, meter reading is not considered a covered task. In identifying covered tasks, operators must consider specific activities and not necessarily the job classification of individuals performing the activities, because each job classification may incorporate several activities. For example, an individual with the job classification, ‘‘meter reader,’’ may be assigned activities other than reading a meter, such as distribution line patrolling under 49 CFR Part 192.721, that could be covered tasks. Page 6 <<>> Enforcement Guidance Revision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code Language Origin of Code Last Amendment Interpretation Summaries Advisory Bulletin/Alert Notice Summaries Qualification of Pipeline Personnel Parts 192,195 8 25 2016 §192.803,§195.503 Definitions Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation from normal operations that may: (a) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or (b) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment. Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered task by any of the following: (a) Written examination; (b) Oral examination; (c) Work performance history review; (d) Observation during: (1) Performance on the job, (2) On the job training, or (3) Simulations; (e) Other forms of assessment. Qualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can: (a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and (b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions. 192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 192-90, 66 FR 43523, Aug. 20, 2001 195-72, 66 FR 43523, Aug. 20, 2001 192,195 Date: 12/7/2009 Advisory Bulletin ADB-09-03 Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification (OQ) Program Modifications Informs pipeline operators about the standardized notification process for operator qualification (OQ) plan transmittal from the operator to PHMSA; about the addition to PHMSA's glossary of definitions of the terms “Observation of on-the-job performance'' as applicable to determining employee qualification and “Significant'' as applicable to OQ program modifications requiring notification; and lastly about clarifications to assist operators to ensure OQ reviews are being done in conjunction with O&M reviews. The definitions of on the job performance and significant contained in Advisory Bulletin ADB-09-03 are intended to be advisory in nature. The definitions Page 7 <<>> contained in the Advisory Bulletin are not enforceable. Other Reference 192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q Material & Source Guidance Information 1. Operators are required to have a written qualification program that includes definitions of the terms in this section as well as how these terms apply within their pipeline operations. 2. Definitions included in the Operator’s OQ plan must be consistent with those found in this section, i.e. §192.803,§195.503. 3. The Operator should note in its written OQ plan that although terms pre- defined in the pipeline safety regulations e.g. Abnormal Operating Condition (AOC), Evaluation, Qualified, etc., may appear in the Operator’s OQ plan, the plan should also include (where applicable) those terms that are unique to the Operator’s particular pipeline system. The OQ plan should also note that the Operator’s application of terms – whether unique to its pipeline system or pre- defined in the pipeline safety regulations – must be applied by the Operator as required in its OQ plan. 4. The terms, while necessary to be consistent with the regulations, are not to be replicated in the written qualification program. 5. In developing the definition of an AOC, operators must identify conditions that would be reasonably recognizable by an individual performing a covered task. Examples of a Probable Violation or Inadequate Procedures 1. The written qualification program does not include definitions for abnormal operating conditions, evaluations, or qualified as they apply within the operator’s daily operations and maintenance activities. 2. The written qualification program does not apply these terms to the operations for the particular pipeline system. 3. The definitions were not consistent with the type of operations conducted by the operator. 4. The definitions were not consistent with the language in the regulation. 5. The operator did not provide for the differences between the types of evaluation methods and how/when they will be applied. Depending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be inadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the enforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a Notice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement Procedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action. Examples of Evidence 1. Copy of written qualification program or applicable portion that shows omission or deficiency in the plan. 2. Documented conversations with operator personnel who are charged with establishing the plan. 3. Operator records. Other Special Notations The definitions of on the job performance and significant contained in Advisory Bulletin ADB-09-03 are intended to be advisory in nature. The definitions Page 8 <<>> contained in the Advisory Bulletin are not enforceable. Page 9 <<>> Enforcement Guidance Revision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code Language Origin of Code Last Amendment Interpretation Summaries Advisory Bulletin/Alert Notice Summaries Other Reference Material & Source Guidance Information Qualification of Pipeline Personnel Parts 192,195 8 25 2016 §192.805(a),§195.505(a) Qualification Program Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (a) Identify covered tasks; 192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q 1. Pipeline operators were required to have a written OQ program in place by April 27, 2001, and to have completed the qualification of individuals performing covered tasks by October 28, 2002. 2. Operator’s plan must cover the requirements to perform covered tasks on its pipeline facilities. Each operator shall have a list of covered tasks and the methods used to identify the covered tasks. 3. Some covered tasks are identified in consensus standards – which are incorporated by reference. 4. The operator’s plan must address the unique and task specific operations, maintenance, and repair tasks performed on their pipeline system. Therefore, in the event an operator transports natural gas and hazardous liquids, the operator is required to identity each covered task and the qualification requirements for personnel that are unique to the specific operations maintenance, and repair of its natural gas, as well as its hazardous liquids pipeline system. The list of covered tasks should be tailored to encompass those operations, maintenance, and repair tasks used by the operator. 5. In the event an Operator transports multiple commodities through its pipeline system, it is suggested that the Operator’s covered tasks list clearly identify the commodity to which the covered tasks applies, e.g. “L” for Hazardous Liquids or “G” for Natural Gas. In those instances where a covered task is identical – regardless of the commodity transported e.g. pipe-to-soil readings – such a distinction may not be necessary. Page 10 <<>> 6. Operators’ program should also note that covered tasks performed on ‘transmission’ pipelines may be unique and distinct from those performed on ‘distribution’ pipelines. 7. The written operator qualification plan can be an off the shelf program, a consultant or consortium prepared plan, or a plan developed by the operator. 8. The operator may also use contractors and other third parties and these same requirements would apply to the contractors and third parties performing covered tasks on the pipeline. 9. The Operator’s plan must ensure that qualified persons have been evaluated and are capable of performing the assigned covered tasks; and recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions. 10. Plains Pipeline, L.P., [4-2009-5005] (Final Order - April 6. 2010) Found that the operator failed to identify the covered tasks of installing, inspecting, and maintaining its Vapor Corrosion Inhibitor (VpCI) system. The VpCI system was a proprietary system that a vendor had installed and tested. The Final Order ruled that even though there are instances in which a pipeline contractor may contract for the performance of specialized services for which company personnel do not have subject-matter expertise, §195.505(a) still requires the pipeline operator to identify the covered tasks that will be performed and to ensure that persons performing such tasks are capable of performing the task; there is no difference between tasks performed by third- party contractors or pipeline employees. CP, CO. 11. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., [4-2005-8004] (Final Order - Aug. 22, 2007) Found that the operator failed to specifically identify each covered task performed on its hazardous liquid pipeline system including the abnormal operating conditions associated with each task. The operator qualification program at issue in the case stated that the covered tasks identified for natural gas pipelines could also be used to qualify individuals performing tasks on hazardous liquid pipelines. The Final Order ruled that it is not sufficient for the operator to identify covered tasks performed on its natural gas pipelines and then assume those same tasks and abnormal operating conditions are transferable to hazardous liquid pipelines. CP. 12. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC [CPF 1-2011-5008] (Consent Agreement and Order – July 17, 2013) This case was settled. The Operator agreed to complete the corrective actions specified in Section II (Work to be Performed) of the Consent Agreement and Order. During its field review, the PHMSA inspector noted that KM failed to identify tank painting or the application of coatings and their repair as a covered task in its written qualification program. By way of this Consent Agreement and Order, KM agreed to adequately identify and list in its written Operations Qualification program tank painting as a covered task. CO, CP. 13. Enterprise Products Operating, LLC., [3-2009-5022] (Final Order - Aug. 14, 2012) Found that the operator failed to properly identify pipefitting as a covered task, when performed while making a repair to its pipeline involving the installation of a threaded connection. The Final Order ruled that the OQ regulations require Operators to identify covered task for all of their operations and maintenance activities that are required by sections 192.805(a) and 195.505(a), regardless of whether such activities arise from performance-based regulations or from more prescriptive requirements; and Operators must recognize that other critical activities Page 11 <<>> may be covered tasks. Covered tasks do not only include those activities that a re specifically regulated by Parts 192 and 195, but also those activities that are performance-based. Each Operator needs to review its own operations and maintenance activities in light of the regulatory requirements to determine whether a task – such as pipefitting – is an integral component of meeting such requirements, and whether the task satisfies each prong of the four-part test. If so, the Operator should include and identify that activity as a covered task. CP, CO. 14. Marathon Pipe Line, LLC [4-2010-5013] (Consent Agreement and Order – May 11, 2012) This case was settled. The Operator agreed that it would incorporate the installation and operation of bentonite mud plugs as a vapor barrier to isolate hazardous vapors as a covered task(s) in its operator qualification (OQ) program. The Operator also agreed to introduce training to ensure that individuals performing this covered task(s) have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the task(s). CO, CP Examples of a Probable Violation or Inadequate Procedures 1. The operator or contractor has no written operator qualification program. 2. The written operator qualification program duplicates the language in the code sections and is not written specific to the operations. 3. The written operator qualification program was not specific for natural gas or hazardous liquids pipeline facilities. 4. The written operator qualification program does not include a specific list of covered tasks. 5. The operator did not include/identify all of the covered tasks for their pipeline operations. Examples, contractor and/or subcontractor performed tasks. 6. The written operator qualification program does not include a requirement for application of the four-part test to all covered tasks. 7. There is no documentation using the four-part test by the operator to define covered tasks, or identify tasks performed that do not meet the four-part test. 8. The written operator qualification program does not define new construction or O&M activities. 9. The written operator qualification program does not identify all applicable covered tasks as required by the operator qualification rule. Some examples include: excavation activities performed by company personnel, regulator installation/replacement, odorizing gas, odorant sampling, pipeline patrolling, leak survey, cathodic protection of metal portions of distribution system, pipeline marking, welding on steel pipeline, pipeline repair, line replacement, valve maintenance, backfilling, maintaining hazardous vapor detection system, maintaining operating SCADA equipment, pipefitting of screw-type fittings or small valves, integrity management tasks (e.g., launching and receiving pigs), purging of gas pipelines, service line installations, service line repair, start up and shut down of a pipeline, NDT of welds (for repair and on operating lines), operating main-line valves, breakout tank static protection (line velocity), , prevention of microbiological induced corrosion (MIC), e.g. in-line inspection, close interval survey, jeeping pipeline for damaged or disbanded coating, repair methods, etc. 10. The operator did not identify additions, revisions, or deletions of covered tasks. 11. The operator did not implement the requirements of the written operator qualification program. Page 12 <<>> Depending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be inadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the enforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a Notice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement Procedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action. Examples of Evidence 1. No written qualification program. 2. Copy of written qualification program or applicable portion that shows omission or deficiency in the plan. 3. Documented conversations with operator personnel who are charged with identifying covered tasks within the plan. 4. Written covered task list. 5. Records of development for the covered task list. 6. Four part test verification for all listed covered tasks. Other Special Notations Some distribution operators were granted a waiver for compliance with the qualification of employees. For plumbers replacing customer owned service lines in both the State of Pennsylvania and the State of Ohio waivers were granted and received PHMSA approval to allow for extended time periods for compliance for qualification of plumbers replacing customer owned service lines. Page 13 <<>> Enforcement Guidance Revision Date Code Section Section Title Existing Code Language Origin of Code Last Amendment Interpretation Summaries Advisory Bulletin/Alert Notice Summaries Other Reference Material & Source Guidance Information Qualification of Pipeline Personnel Parts 192, 195 8 25 2016 §192.805(b),§195.505(b) Qualification Program Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include provisions to: (b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified; 192-86, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 195-67, 64 FR 46853, Aug. 27, 1999 192, GPTC, API 1161, ASME B31Q 1. Operators have the opportunity to use company employees, contractors, and other subcontracted parties to conduct activities that are considered “covered tasks” on their pipeline facilities. 2. All individuals performing covered tasks are required to be initially qualified through evaluation. 3. The operator is required to qualify the tasks using the company program or ensure that the other contracted parties are initially qualified in accordance with the regulations. 4. Operator must ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. In addition, “qualified” means the individuals can (a) performed the assigned covered tasks; and (b) recognize and react to AOCs. Therefore, if an individual is unable to “perform” the assigned covered tasks, then by definition, the individual is not qualified. 5. “Actual performance” of the tasks must be part of the Operator’s evaluation to determine if an individual is qualified to perform the assigned covered tasks. An Operators’ knowledge evaluations must be based on actual on the job performance of the covered tasks. 6. ENSTAR Natural Gas Co., [5-2004-0003] (Final Order - April 28, 2009) Found that operator violated § 192.805(b) because ENSTAR employees were not able to recognize and react to AOCs that may occur. During the Page 14 <<>> inspection, Respondent’s Control Center personnel were questioned by the OPS Inspection team and could not properly recognize excursions above MAOP as AOCs. The Final Order determined that Control Center personnel must be able to readily identify excursions from MAOP as AOCs in order to address quickly and properly these potentially dangerous conditions. CP. 7. West Texas Gas, Inc., [CPF 4-2005-1015] (Final Order - Mar. 31, 2008) Found that the operator violated § 192.805(b) because the operator’s written qualification program only identified generic abnormal operating conditions (AOCs), but did not include provisions that identified task-specific AOCs for each covered task. The operator cited OPS guidance FAQ 4.3 in support of its contention that identification of task-specific AOCs is optional. The Final Order ruled that FAQ 4.3 and the text of the regulation are consistent with each other, and that the regulation requires operators to identify both task- specific and generic AOCs. CP. Examples of a Probable Violation or Inadequate Procedures General 1. The operator or contractor has no written operator qualification program. 2. The written operator qualification program duplicates the language in the code sections and is not written specific to the operations. 3. The written operator qualification program does not contain criteria for evaluating the qualifications of individuals performing covered tasks. 4. The written operator qualification program does not identify any AOCs. 5. The written operator qualification program does not identify both generic and task specific AOCs. 6. The written operator qualification program and evaluation materials identify generic and task specific AOCs, but do not address the required reactions to the generic and task specific AOCs. 7. Operators do not evaluate individuals on AOC recognition and reaction. 8. Operators do not have documentation showing evaluation of qualified individuals for recognition and reaction to AOCs. 9. Operator documentation demonstrates evaluation for AOC recognition and reaction, but field inspection of individuals performing covered tasks reveals unfamiliarity with subject. 10. Operators include AOC evaluation for employees, but do not ensure AOC evaluation for contractor individuals. 11. Operators do not include generic and task specific AOC evaluation as a part of the periodic re-evaluation process for covered tasks. 12. Operators do not implement the written operator qualification program requirements for evaluation and qualification of individuals. 13. The operator did not implement the requirements of the written operator qualification program. Company Employees 14. Operators do not document the evaluation methods used for qualification or re-qualification (re-evaluation for qualification). 15. Operators do not document that individuals have been evaluated for generic and task specific AOC recognition and reaction. 16. Operators qualify individuals by observation of work that is not specific to the individual or the covered task being performed. 17. Operators have individuals performing covered tasks that have not been Page 15 <<>> qualified for those tasks. This can also be due to operator failure to correctly identify their covered tasks (e.g., identifying main replacement as new construction). 18. Operators have irregularities with evaluation records that leave the qualification of individuals in doubt. Examples are: use of the exam key for the written exam with the correct answers bolded and italicized; re- marking of exams by the individual to make a 100% score following review rather than re-taking the exam; welding being performed with a weld rod size for which the individual is not qualified. 19. The operator used a meeting sign-in sheet as the sole record of qualification for employees of the company. 20. The written operator qualification program does not identify task-specific evaluation methods used to initially qualify individuals. 21. The written operator qualification program does not identify how or by what methods individuals will become initially qualified. 22. Operators allow individuals who have not been evaluated and qualified to perform covered tasks. 23. The Operator did not document that the individual performing the covered tasks had been evaluated and qualified. 24. Operators do not ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified and possess the task-specific knowledge, skills, and ability to perform the assigned covered tasks, and to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions. Examples are use of knowledge- only testing for all tasks, use of performance evaluations without interaction to ensure the knowledge level of the individual performing the task, or use of one knowledge test to qualify individuals for all tasks. 25. Operators do not perform any evaluations for qualification of individuals performing covered tasks. 26. Evaluators do not possess the required knowledge to ascertain an individual's ability to perform covered tasks and to substantiate an individual's ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal operating conditions that might occur while performing these activities. 27. The evaluation process is not objective and consistent. That is to say, the process does not ensure that evaluators are knowledgeable about the subject tasks in order to conduct effective evaluations. 28. Supervisors and or foreman are not qualified although they are performing covered tasks and or serving as the individual assigned to direct and observe an unqualified person performing covered tasks. 29. Operators allow the following to be performed during the evaluation process: two individuals evaluated and qualified each other based on the knowledge of each that the other had been performing the task successfully in the past (commonly referred to as a "brother-in-law" process, and amounts to work performance history review, which is not allowed as a single evaluation method), some individuals performed evaluations and were (a) not qualified to do the work themselves; (b) were not subject matter experts (SMEs) in that subject; and (c) were not provided a "script" to go by during the evaluation (such as a corrosion tech was evaluated by someone who was not himself a corrosion tech). Page 16 <<>> 30. In a one-on-one performance evaluation, "group" performance evaluations were employed rather than “individual” or “hands-on” tests. “Group” performance evaluations do not ensure each individual is qualified; evaluator failed to initial the subtasks as required by the Operator’s procedures. 31. Field inspections indicate that individuals performing covered tasks are inadequately qualified (such as O&M procedures were inadequate, materials for repair were not suitable for the service intended, employees were not following proper gas distribution practices, missed procedure steps, incorrect use of equipment, unfamiliar with operation of equipment being used, incorrect result when performing task). 32. Operators do not have supporting documentation, such as evaluation records, for qualification of individuals that perform covered tasks. 33. Operators do not ensure that knowledge tests are consistent with O&M procedures or operator practices. 34. The written program does not include a process for ensuring operator qualification, evaluations, and performance of covered tasks during the merge - **truncated:** true - **body characters:** 103138