# Presentation: 517921

## OQ Update ~ 2005 

**Operator Qualification Rules** **49 CFR Part 192 (Subpart N) – Part 195 (Subpart G)**

## Why is OQ So Important???

- One Example ------

## You've carefully thought out all the angles...

You've done it a thousand times...

It comes naturally to you...

You know what you're doing; its what you've been trained to do your whole life...

Nothing could possibly go wrong, right ?

- You've done it a thousand times...
- It comes naturally to you...
- You know what you're doing; its what you've been trained to do your whole life...
- Nothing could possibly go wrong, right ?

## Think Again !!!

## Presentation Content

- Review History of OQ (OQ1)
- Discuss Protocols Application
- Summarize Findings from   Inspections to Date
- Discuss B31.Q Status
- Recent Advisory Bulletin

## “OQ-1” History

- Negotiated Rulemaking Produced Rules
- Rules Published 08/27/99 (Required all Individuals Performing Covered Tasks to be Qualified by 10/28/02)

## “OQ-1” History

- NTSB Announced that the Rule was Insufficient to Support Satisfactory Closure of OQ Issue
- OPS Initiated “OQ-2”

## “OQ-2” History

**OQ-2** Included:
- Revisiting Original OQ Expectations
- Preparation of Inspection** ****Protocols**
- Development of **FAQ’s**
- Communication through **Web Site (**_[http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/oq/index.htm](http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/oq/index.htm)__)_** **

## OQ-2 History (Cont’d)

- Congress Weighs In (PSIA-2002)
- OQ “Standards and Criteria” Must be in Place by **12/17/03**
- Regulators Must Complete Initial Inspections of all Operators by **12/17/05**
- Pilot Program for Certification of Pipeline Controllers Must be Completed by **12/17/05**

## OQ-2 History (Cont’d)

- Mini Rule (PSIA-2002)
- Operators must provide _**TRAINING**_**, **_***as appropriate***_, to provide individuals with necessary knowledge and skills
- Failure of OPS to act (issue regs.) does not excuse operators from requirement to comply

## OQ-2 History (Cont’d)

- Mini Rule (PSIA-2002)
**Reevaluation intervals** are correct for task
**“****Significant”** modifications to the operator’s OQ program must be communicated to OPS

## January 2003		San Antonio
February 2003		Houston
March 2003		Phoenix
April 2003			Atlanta

**February 2003****	****	****Houston**
**March 2003****	****	****Phoenix**
**April 2003****	****	****	****Atlanta**

- Public Meetings Conducted OQ-2 History (Cont’d)

## One Problem: Definition of                    “Qualified”

**“****Qualified”**** means that an ****individual**** has been ****evaluated**** and can:**
**	****(a)   ****Perform**** assigned ****covered tasks****; and**
**	****(b)   ****Recognize**** and ****react**** to ****abnormal ****	****	****   operating conditions****.**** **** **

## One Problem: Definition of                    “Qualified”

**Which ****Individuals**** are Covered?**
**Who ****Evaluates**** and How?**
**How are ****Covered Tasks**** Determined?**
**What are ****AOC’s**** ?**
**What does ****“Recognize and React”**** Mean?**** **** **

## Persons Covered by OQ Rule

**Individuals Who Perform Covered Tasks:**
**Operator Employees**
**Contractor Employees**
**Subcontractor Employees**
**“****Other Entities” Performing CT’s**

##    “Other Entities” Performing Covered Tasks 

-    “Other Entities” Performing Covered Tasks

## Statement on the Role of OQ Protocols

- OQ Rule is Performance-based, Which Implies a Need for:
- Management Practices & Procedures
- Measurement of Program Effectiveness
- Protocols Support Rule/PSIA

## Statement on the Use of OQ Protocols 

- The Role of Protocols
- Checklist to Support Inspectors & Provide Consistency in Evaluating OQ Programs
- Structured into “Protocol Questions,”  Which are Paired Directly with Prescriptive and Non-prescriptive Requirements of the Rule

## Statement on the Use of OQ Protocols

- Nature of the Rule – Cont’d
- Inspectors Will Evaluate Compliance with the Rule’s Prescriptive Provisions (and)
- Will Evaluate the Completeness and Anticipated/Apparent Effectiveness of the _Documented_ Approaches Taken to Qualify Individuals

## OQ Rule ~Prescriptive Requirements  

- §192.805:  Must Have & Follow Written OQ
-                      Program
-          Written Program Must Meet
-              7 Listed Provisions
- §192.807:  Operator Shall Maintain Records
- (Records Must Include 4 Specified Items)

## OQ Rule ~Prescriptive Requirements  

- §192.809 Operator Must Meet Specified Dates ---
- Written Program By 		      	**Apr 27 ‘01**
- Personnel Qualified By 			**Oct 28 ‘02**
- Cannot Use WPHR Alone After 	**Oct 28 ‘02**

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (1)

- Programs Varied Considerably in Maturity
- Significant Differences in Number of Covered Tasks (Use of Subtasks)
- Significant Differences in Tasks Deemed to be “Covered” (Definition Issue)

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (2)

- Program “Performance Measures” are Typically Non-existent
- Many Written Programs Tended to “Parrot” Rule Requirements Without Thinking Through Procedures to Implement Program

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (3)

- Operators Place Significant Responsibilities on Front-line Supervisors for Success of OQ Program
- Absence of **Evaluation Criteria**, **Qualification Documentation** and **Program Development** “set up” Supervisors for Failure

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (3)

- _Operators Differed in Treatment of__Some “Outstanding Issues:”_
- O&M Activities vs. “New Construction”(A “Definition” Problem...)
- Excavation Over Loaded Pipelines
- Inclusion of Emergency Response Tasks
- Integration of Training Documentation into the OQ Program

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (4)

- _Operators Differed in Treatment of__Some “Outstanding Issues”:_
**AOCs** (Task-specific, Often Integrated into Individual Tasks & Evaluations; Generic AOCs then Treated Separately – or Not Addressed in Some Cases)
- Virtually No Formalized and Documented Methodology to Identify New **AOCs** from “Near-miss”

## Observations from Early  Inspections: Findings (5)

- _Operators Differed in Treatment of__Some “Outstanding Issues:”_
- Specific Guidance on Span-of-Control
- 	(for Use of Non-qualified Individuals)
- Identifying Persons Contributing to Incident/ Accident:
- Immediate Contribution (Easier)
- Delayed Contribution (Harder)

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (6)

- _Most Operators Treated Some “Outstanding Issues” Similarly:_
- Justification for Reevaluation Intervals was “Subjective” (No Evidence Provided Tying Quantitative Performance Measures to the Established Intervals)
- Tendency to (Try to) Place the Compliance Burden on Contractors (by Contract)

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (7)

- Discomforting  use  of  “WPHR”
- (Work Performance History Review)
- to “Pre-qualify” Individuals

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (8)

- Rigor of Contractor Qualification Varied Considerably, Leading to Strong Concern About Adequacy of Operator’s Contractor Qualification Procedures
- Many Operators did not Consider Replacement of “Out-of-Service” Pipelines as O&M (a “Pipeline Facility” Definition Problem)

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (9)

- Rigor of Evaluator Credentialing (or Selection) has Varied Considerably
- Insufficient Level of Detail in Evaluation Process

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (10)

- Management of Change---
-    Guidance is Needed on Defining:
**Significance**** **of Change
- Corresponding **Impact**** **on Qualification
- Required **Action**** **to Retain Qualification

## Observations from Early Inspections: Findings (11)

- Large Variations in Plans to Evaluate Program Effectiveness, Ranging from:
**No Specific** Plan to Review Program
**Formally Review Program** “as Needed” and Assignment of Responsibility for Periodic Program Review

## Likely Future Events 

- Issuance of Focused Supplementary Rule (Advisory Bulletin published 11/26/04)
- Documentation of Role of Training
- Support for Reevaluation Interval
- Reporting of “Significant Changes”
- Publication of B31.Q
- B31.Q Standard

## Who’s Developing the B31.Q Standard?

- _Stakeholders under ASME_
- Industry: Oil, Gas, Liquids, Offshore, Transmission and LDC’s
- Vendors
- Contractors
- Regulators (State and Federal)

## Scope of B31.Q Standard

*This standard specifies the requirements for the qualification of individuals performing *_*safety or integrity*_* related tasks for the operation and maintenance of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that are subject to ASME B31.4 & B31.8. The standard establishes the *_*processes*_* to determine which tasks require qualified individuals and the *_*processes*_* that may be utilized to obtain qualification. The standard also includes *_*processes*_* **for training, requalification, documentation, quality control and requirements for management of change.*

## What’s the status of the standard?

- B31.Q Committee meet
- Draft on Web by February 2005 for Public Comment
- 	Ball in OPS’ Court (OPS can ***ibr*** B31.Q in its Entirety, Specific Sections, Sections with Changes or Additions, or do Nothing at all
- If OPS I**ncorporates** - 2006 to Take Effect and Until **2008** to Comply

## Expected Benefits of B31.Q

- Future Rule Changes Should be Minimized
- IMP Requirements are Embedded
- “Portability” is Possible Outcome
- Will Better Meet Stakeholders’ Expectations (NTSB, Congress)

## Moving Forward with OQ

## Inspection Deadline

**All Operators are to be Inspected by**
**	****December 17, 2005,**** **
**	****as Required by PSIA 2002 **

## Inspection Format

**Use of 16 Protocol Questions,**
**	****Including Process, Procedure,                    and Records *****(Elements 1-8)***
**Field Verification:**
**	****Review of Task Performance, Procedures, and Knowledge of AOC’s *****(Element 9)***

## 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

## Enforcement of the OQ Rule

- Significant Efforts Underway to Ensure **Consistency**** **of Inspections
- Enforcement of Rule may Vary Among Federal and State Authorities

## Enforcement of the OQ Rule

- OPS will Utilize all Available **Enforcement** Tools to Address Inadequate Plans, Records, and Compliance with the Rule, Including:
- (NOA) Notice of Amendment
- (NOPV) Notice of Probable Violation
- (PCO) Proposed Compliance Order
- (PCP) Proposed Civil Penalty

## 62% of OQ violations are NOPVs and NOAs

## Staying Current

- _[http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/oq/index.htm](http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/oq/index.htm)_
- _[http://www.tsi.dot.gov/divisions/pipeline/_x000b_pipeline.htm](http://www.tsi.dot.gov/divisions/pipeline/%0Bpipeline.htm)__  _

## Other Sources for 

***Information***

* *

## Other Sources for 

***Information***

* *

## Other Sources for 

***Information***

* *

## Other Sources for 

***Information***

* *

*“**Word” Documents:*

*OQ Lessons Learned_021804.doc*
*Enforcement Guidelines with Coments.doc*
*OQ Audit Issues 8-13-01.doc*
*OQ History.doc*
*(For Copies of PowerPoint Presentations and/or MSWord Documents, Contact: *_[sharon.webb@dot.gov](mailto:sharon.webb@dot.gov)_*) *

## Questions ?

***Information***

* *

***Questions ?***