1. Click to edit Master title style Operator Qualification Challenges
Today & Future
Dennis M. Kuhn
Regulatory Compliance Specialist

2. Topics Introduction OQ
Addressing abnormal operating conditions during evaluations and at job site
Tracking OQ during major projects
Maintaining records of who actually performed the covered task(s)
Span of Control limitations and documentation
Addressing the “gaps” between:
Qualification and Operator-specific procedures
Performing OQ work and meeting D&A requirements
Recent regulatory OQ findings and expectations
Q&A

3. Operator Qualification (OQ) Rule
The OQ Rule is intended to provide an additional level of safety and requires pipeline Operators to develop a qualification program to evaluate an individual’s ability to perform covered tasks and to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that may occur while performing covered tasks.

4. Operator Qualification (OQ) Rule
OQ is not intended to be a one-time event, but a process that continues for the working lifetime of an individual.
After initial evaluation and qualification have been completed, re-evaluation and requalification is required.
The Operator must recognize this and designate for each covered task an appropriate time interval for requalification.

5. Operator Qualification (OQ) Rule
Why do we need qualified individuals…

9. Non-Qual crane op…

11. In Houston, TX not so much an issue for ice
In Houston, TX not so much an issue for ice. Anywhere else, like Minnesota, they will need winches.
Upper right, what can I say?

12. Severed gas line in desert outside of White Sands Proving Ground, accident report read “4 ½ inch gas line severed by falling rocket booster from White Sand’s Proving Grounds” you can’t make this stuff up.

13. This happened Wednesday, July 23rd 2008, out in Mill Creek , WA
This happened Wednesday, July 23rd 2008, out in Mill Creek , WA.    The driver was attempting to throw the logging  cable over the logs to secure them. As you can see, he hooked the electric line instead!     He said the tires began to fry within seconds..
very lucky man he could easily have been fried himself! 

14. You might say the truck was "hot wired".  
7200 volts direct to ground.

15. A KC-135 aircraft was being pressurized at ground level
A KC-135 aircraft was being pressurized at ground level. The outflow valves which are used to regulate the pressure of the aircraft were capped off during a 5 year overhaul and never opened back up.

16. If you could see his face, he is smiling
If you could see his face, he is smiling. Either it isn’t his truck or it is and he didn’t like it. Would you like this guy cutting trees around your house without some qualification?

19. Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC’s)
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.
Engage in AOC examples --

20. Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOC’s)
Qualified individuals must be able to recognize and react appropriately to AOC’s.
Recognize: means that the employees are able to identify a situation or event on the pipeline that is out of the ordinary and could become a hazard to the public or environment, if not promptly corrected.
React appropriately: means the employee knows what to do to ensure that the hazard is promptly addressed. This could include notifying the employee’s supervisor or site inspector or taking the correct action to mitigate the hazard, whichever is appropriate for the AOC.
React—PPE—How is that accomplished?

21. How do you address AOC’s?
Task-specific versus generic
PHMSA OQ FAQ - Operators are expected to develop a thorough listing of AOCs, both task-specific and generic. The task-specific AOCs may be included within the evaluation criteria for the specific task, but the generic AOCs should be maintained in a separate list and reviewed periodically.
PHMSA Integrated Inspection Guidance - In addition to task-specific AOCs (i.e., those that may be caused by performance of the task), generic AOCs (i.e., those that may reasonably be encountered during performance of the task) have been identified and used in qualification in cases where special requirements and conditions for the task being performed must be considered.
During evaluation
At the job site
Discuss “best practices” as potential methods…. JSA, tailgate briefings, periodic reviews i.e. weekly safety briefings etc…

22. Tracking OQ during Projects
Identify applicable covered tasks for the activities that will be performed
Communicate requirements to all affected personnel
Assure personnel are qualified to perform the applicable covered tasks, before they perform the task
Addressing Span of Control (SOC)
Obtain/maintain qualification records

23. Sample Covered Task List
Span of Control (SOC)
No one can perform a covered task unless they are specifically qualified to perform that task or are directed, observed and supervised by a qualified individual (if span of control is allowed) as outlined in the OQ plan
Sample Covered Task List
Stress the difference in “supervise” and intent of SOC…

24. Span of Control (SOC)
A SOC ratio of 1:3 would mean that one qualified employee could direct and observe up to three unqualified employees.
Discuss difference between lazy fare style-supervise and intent of SOC. Give eg’s of situations – ask audience to answer scenario (scenario of coating crew-valve operations…)

25. Span of Control Expectations
Assure that a qualified person is always present during activities where a covered task is being performed
Assure that all individuals, qualified and non-qualified, understand the requirements
Consider any conditions that may impact the SOC ratio, such as:
Language Barriers
Noise Level
Weather
Regulatory agencies’ expectations
“Sniper” Observations
Recap on scenarios and tie to examples to stress importance: Glass of water…Coating crew in FL. Discuss seen methods of tracking… documentation under OQ records….

26. Tracking OQ during Projects
Track personnel who actually performed task(s)
Need to identify individual for each covered task
Inspectors’ role?
How often do you verify qualifications and identities?
Who worked under SOC?
Record Discussions
AOC’s (Site-Specific)
SOC limits & adjustments
Procedures/policies

27. The “Gap” OQ and Operator-specific procedures
Task criteria versus Operator procedures
Use of “off-the-shelf” covered tasks
How is it addressed?
Need to demonstrate that the person in the “ditch” is aware of procedures
Best Practices
Tailgate meetings
JSA’s
Training
Regulatory agencies’ expectations
Lvls of workers knowledge = to….

28. D&A Requirements
49 CFR Part 199 outlines the requirements for Operators including contractors and subcontractors.
Operators of pipeline facilities that are subject to part 192, 193, or 195, are required to test covered employees for the presence of prohibited drugs and alcohol.

29. RESPONSIBILITIES
Operators are responsible for meeting 49 CFR parts 40 and 199 to include but not limited to:
All actions of your officials, reps, and agents (including service agents) in carrying out the requirements of the DOT agency regulations.
Maintain and follow a written Anti-Drug & Alcohol Misuse Prevention Plan that conforms to the requirements
Assure that all covered employees are aware of the provisions and coverage of the plan

30. RESPONSIBILITIES (Cont)
Provide clear policies and provisions for education and training, drug and alcohol testing
Provide when needed, referral for evaluation, education, and treatment to employees
Contractor compliance
Highlight contractor compliance….

31. Operator Qualification (OQ) Rule
The OQ Rule is intended to provide an additional level of safety and requires pipeline Operators to develop a qualification program to evaluate an individual’s ability to perform covered tasks and to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that may occur while performing covered tasks.
Recap from beginning of presentation --- lead into the highlited points of the rule and how D&A tie to S&A and AOC….

32. Operator Qualification (OQ) Rule
Drugs and alcohol effect a person’s ability to make coherent decisions, motor functions and vision. Thus drugs and alcohol effect an individual’s ability to perform covered tasks and to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that may occur while performing covered tasks.

33. Connecting The Requirements
D&A and OQ
Cannot perform covered work until compliance with D&A are met
How is it monitored?
Need to demonstrate that the person(s) (Internal and Contractors) meet D&A, prior to performing covered work
Tie covered “functions” with “CT” – Discuss tasks outside of the CT –ER etc…to stress SOW for determining based off of 199.

34. D&A Program Challenges
Program Monitoring
TPA
Contractor Compliance
State laws
Medical marijuana
Recreational use
For MJ discuss the PHMSA letter and Federal vs State…..

35. Medical Marijuana States
Currently there are 19 States that have approved the use of Medical Marijuana

36. State vs. Federal
Medical use and or State legalized use of controlled substances
CFR 49 parts 40 and 199 = Federal requirement
No State can authorize violations of federal law

37. Addressing D&A-OQ “Gap”
Need to periodically review program
When was the last review?
Are you using a TPA?
Need to develop method for contractor compliance
Review Contractor D&A Plans for compliance
Monitor statistical data
How do you assure contractors that do not meet compliance are not performing covered functions?
Need to communicate non compliance of contractors to field personnel
Give examples….Site 199 where semi-annual and onetime review is not considered acceptable…

38. Who is Responsible
Like OQ, the Operator is held responsible for non-compliance
Internal Plan
Contractor Plan
Third Party Administrator
Circle from Internal to all to highlight contractor compliance…

39. PHMSA Enforcement Actions
The Pipeline Enforcement Program has a number of different mechanisms to assure operator compliance and safe operation. Including:
Letters of Concern
Warning Letters
Notice of Amendment
Notice of Probable Violations
Corrective Action Orders
Notice of Proposed Safety Order
The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 increased the civil penalty authority of PHMSA to a maximum of $200,000 per violation per day, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.
Title 49, Part 190, Subpart B

40. PHMSA Enforcements Issued
2002 – June 2013
Corrective Action Orders 102
Notice of Probably Violation
Notices of Amendment 877
Warning Letters
Notices of Proposed Safety Orders
Civil Penalties Proposed Penalties $54,301,200 Assessed Penalties $37,735,437
(Including 33 cases in 2013))

41. Criminal Penalties Criminal penalties may be taken:
If any person willfully and knowingly violates a pipeline safety requirement is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
If any person willfully violates a regulation for off-shore gathering lines is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
If any person willfully and knowingly injures or destroy any interstate pipeline facility, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.
If any person willfully and knowingly defaces, damages, removes, or destroys any pipeline sign, right-of-way marker, or marine buoy, that individual is subject to a fine of not more than $5000 for each offense, imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both.
Criminal Penalties
The United States Code and the pipeline safety regulations also specify conditions under which criminal penalties may be taken. These are:
If any person willfully and knowingly violates a pipeline safety requirement or the conditions of an Order, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
If any person willfully violates a regulation or Order applicable to off-shore gathering lines, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
If any person willfully and knowingly injures or destroys (or attempts to injure or destroy) any interstate pipeline facility, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.
If any person willfully and knowingly defaces, damages, removes, or destroys any pipeline sign, right-of-way marker, or marine buoy, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $5000 for each offense, imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both.
If an PHMSA employee becomes aware of any actual or possible activity subject to criminal penalties, the employee reports this information to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Chief Counsel for investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the Chief Counsel may refer the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution of the offender.

42. OQ Protocol Summary Statistics
Significant Protocol Areas
Potential Issues
/Overall Inspections
% PI
4.02 Abnormal Operating Conditions (AOCs)
2116 / 5998
35.3
3.01 Documentation for Individual on CTs
2018 / 5998
33.6
8.02 Notification of Program Changes
1130 / 3563
31.7
2.02 Evaluation Methods for KSA’s
1895 / 5998
31.6
7.01 Qualification Trail
1880 / 5998
31.3

43. Examples of OQ Civil Penalties
2009 – Operator failed to identify a covered task (hot tap) nor had anyone properly qualified: $100,000 fine assessed
2009 – Operator failed to identify a covered task (threaded fitting assembly: $133,100 fine assessed (being contested)
2010 – Operator did not enforce SOC properly: $100,000 fine assessed (being contested)
2010 – Operator allowed unqualified personnel to perform covered tasks; $271,300 fine assessed (being contested)
2010 – Operator failed to identify a covered task (mud plugs) nor had anyone properly qualified: $788,000 fine assessed
2010 – Operator failed to identify covered tasks nor had properly qualify personnel: $98,600 fine assessed
Criminal Penalties
The United States Code and the pipeline safety regulations also specify conditions under which criminal penalties may be taken. These are:
If any person willfully and knowingly violates a pipeline safety requirement or the conditions of an Order, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
If any person willfully violates a regulation or Order applicable to off-shore gathering lines, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
If any person willfully and knowingly injures or destroys (or attempts to injure or destroy) any interstate pipeline facility, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each offense, imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.
If any person willfully and knowingly defaces, damages, removes, or destroys any pipeline sign, right-of-way marker, or marine buoy, that individual, if convicted, is subject to a fine of not more than $5000 for each offense, imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both.
If an PHMSA employee becomes aware of any actual or possible activity subject to criminal penalties, the employee reports this information to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Chief Counsel for investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the Chief Counsel may refer the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution of the offender.

44. Notice Of Amendment
Operator did not have “on-site” supervisory personnel who were provided the 60-minute training regarding identification of probable drug use.
The interim area manager is trained but is only “on-site” approximately once every 3 months.
Operators anti-drug plan procedures were found inadequate by PHMSA.
Did not include accident definitions
Post accident drug testing procedures did not explicitly define which employees are covered by Company’s anti-drug plan.

45. Civil Penalties
A civil penalty of $40,000 for Operators violation of 49 C.F.R.§ (a)(1), for failing to test each covered employee for alcohol whose performance of a covered function either contributed to the May 4, 2009 accident or could not be completely discounted as a contributing factor to that accident.

46. Common Findings During Audits
Required annual testing percentages not met
DAMIS Reporting
No data to report (contractor compliance
Operator failed to identify contractors whom performed covered work
Flooding the pool
Plan does not meet the minimum requirements
Laboratory not approved

47. Common Findings During Audits
DER not understanding regulations/requirements
Drug/Alcohol Plans outdated
Missing data or inaccurate
Post-accident testing not meeting regulations/requirements
Rehabilitation process/procedures not followed
Testing statistics not maintained or submitted
Records not maintained or available

48. What the Future May Bring
On the horizon:
New construction and inspection tasks may be included
Activities based on incorporated references
Routine monthly break-out tank inspections
Expansion of pipeline facilities
All gathering lines
Well heads
Underground storage facilities
Verification of contractor knowledge of Operator procedures
Documentation of qualified individual that actually performed the task (who wrapped that pipe, etc.)

49. Click to edit Master title style Regulatory Compliance Specialist
Questions?
Dennis M. Kuhn
Regulatory Compliance Specialist
(281)