The Operator Qualification (OQ) Program stems from a mandate in 1992 and continues through present Pipeline Safety Acts. Based on concerns from Congress, current event accidents, the Act of 1992, and again in 1996, the Office of Pipeline Safety developed regulations addressing OQ. Based on the wording associated with the Acts, specific areas, such as operating and maintenance tasks, were required language in the pending regulation. Also, it was emphasized that the ability to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions is imperative.

Initially in 1994, the old rulemaking approach was initiated and out of this came a training proposed rule. Industry, through negotiation, indicated that the vast majority of employees were presently qualified and capable of doing the jobs tasked by the operator. In turn, there was concern about subjecting employees to hours of training when, in fact, they were already qualified. The regulatory side concurred and requested a verification process be established for employees to substantiate their qualification.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on OQ requires pipeline operators to develop and maintain a written qualification program for individuals who perform covered tasks on pipeline facilities. The intent of this qualification rule is to ensure a qualified workforce and to reduce the probability and consequence of incidents caused by human error. The NPRM proposes to create new subparts in the gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations. Although no regulatory program is capable of completely eliminating human error, the objective of the proposed rule was to reduce the risk of accidents on pipeline facilities attributable to human error. It is intended to provide an additional level of safety and would require operators of pipelines 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.

The intent of the OQ Rule is two-fold: 1) to ensure a qualified workforce on jurisdictional pipelines, and thereby, 2) reduce the probability and consequence of pipeline incidents or accidents caused by human error. Thus, 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, there will be a point in time where re-evaluation and requalification will be required. The operator must recognize this and designate for each covered task an appropriate time interval for requalification. In addition to being evaluated for the technical competence to

adequately perform a covered task, qualification of the individual must include the ability to recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions. All pipeline operators subject to Parts 192 and 195 are covered by the OQ Rule and are responsible for ensuring that any employees, contractor employees, subcontractor employees, etc., performing covered tasks on their pipeline are qualified in accordance with the Rule, or are only allowed to perform those tasks while under the direct observation of someone who is qualified. As of October 28, 2003, operators are expected to have completed the required written qualification program and to have qualified all personnel who perform covered tasks.

In addition to RegNeg, numerous meetings, ad hoc conferences, in-house workgroups, and the Pipeline Employee Performance Group (PEPG) helped to establish just what the safety issues were and the performance approach to meeting the new regulations. The initial effort chosen by the PEPG was the new OQ requirement. The PEPG initially developed lesson objectives, a multitude of slide presentations, and outline materials on OQ that were made available on TSI’s web site to ensure consistency throughout the industry. Eventually an OQ Team was formed (Richard Sanders and Warren Miller of RSPA, Paul Wood and Dave Waters of Cycla). They began reviewing operator OQ plans for best practices. At the last meeting in September 2002, Paul Woods presented the OQ protocols issue to PEPG members. He offered examples of some of the issues such as re-evaluation intervals and evaluator requirements, contractor evaluation process, change of management, etc. Members broke into groups to compile a list of what they believed some of the major issues differentiating a good program from others. They identified and ranked major 1 ^st round issues that would be significant for inspectors. They also developed written discussion on how a responsible operator would resolve and deal with each issue. The prioritized list was discussed, some redundancy was noted, and members again broke into groups to refine issues. After hearing that this information would be provided to OPS and inspectors, Gary Cowden, Phil Bennet (AGA), and remaining PEPG members voted to retract input. No additional PEPG meetings were held.

To aid in the inspection of operators against provisions of the OQ Rule, the OQ Team conducted a number of fact-finding visits during the February/March 2003 timeframe. They visited several facilities to better understand “off-the-shelf” programs, to learn how the programs direct operators to implement OQ requirements, and to seek noteworthy practices associated with these programs. In addition, they identified shortcomings in the programs that could compromise compliance with the OQ Rule. The results of these fact-finding visits were documented and provided to inspectors for use in evaluating operators using an off-the-shelf program. Inspectors

will likely use these insights to focus their inspections on both potentially weak and strong aspects of their program. In addition, an OQ matrix was developed by TSI, breaking out inspection mileage by region, state, and operator.

OPS held four public meetings on operator qualification, which resulted in the development of inspection protocols and the recognized need for a consensus standard. The OQ Team held planning meetings, teleconferences, broadcasted panel discussions, fact-finding and consortium visits, and operator enforcement inspections. This initial effort and joint participation with industry also resulted in further development of protocols and inspection forms, which were updated to address small gas systems. The protocols assist federal and state pipeline safety inspectors in evaluating operators’ OQ programs and are used in the course of their rigorous inspections to ensure compliance with all prescriptive requirements of the OQ Rule. The protocols and inspection forms were the basis for developing a comprehensive OQ CBT course for federal and state inspectors. The CBT course involves an online test for satisfactory completion and enabled 450 plus pipeline safety inspectors to be adequately trained prior to taking over inspections in January 2004. The OQ CBT was presented at the NAPSR Board Meeting in Sunset Beach, September 8, 2003, and shipped to inspectors on October 8, 2003.

The protocols, inspection forms, supplementary guidance, etc., were communicated to the public via the TSI web site. The joint efforts of the OQ Team have made possible the formation of an OQ database that compiles inspection data and statistics, and provides reports by operator ID, state, region, miles of pipeline inspected, and notes on record keeping, evaluation methods, etc. To date, natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline companies operating 250,000 plus miles of pipeline have been inspected throughout the nation.

OQ Lessons Learned were developed during the final OQ Federal/State Inspection Team reset meeting held February 10-13, 2004. The document outlines collaborative resolution of regulatory issues, communication among regulators, promoting inspection consistency, industry implementation effectiveness and concerns, and remaining problem areas.

The development of this standard originated from regulatory action in the U.S. from 1987 through 2003. The background would not be complete without a review of regulatory action. In 1987, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a notice inviting public comment on the need for additional regulations or a certification program for the qualification of personnel who design, construct, operate and maintain gas or hazardous liquid pipelines. Shortly thereafter, work began in Congress to amend the Pipeline Safety Laws to include operator qualification requirements. The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 included language to that effect, requiring that all personnel responsible for the operation and maintenance of pipeline facilities be tested for qualifications and certified to operate and maintain those facilities.

In response to the above congressional action, DOT published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 1994 to establish specific training requirements for the qualification of pipeline workers. This training rule met with varying responses including a petition for withdrawal of the NPRM from pipeline industry representatives. In the meantime, Congress amended the 1992 law with the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 1996 requiring simply that all individuals who operate or maintain pipeline facilities be qualified. In addition, this Act required that the qualifications address the ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal operating conditions that may indicate a dangerous situation or a condition exceeding design limits. In 1996, DOT withdrew the 1994 proposed rulemaking and simultaneously issued a notice to form a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a final rule on the qualification of pipeline personnel.

The negotiated rulemaking process (RegNeg) was intended to provide an opportunity for all affected parties to present their views and reach a consensus on a proposed qualification rule. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was hired to convene and facilitate negotiated rulemaking (RegNeg) meetings between stakeholders. The RegNeg was comprised of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline representatives, Federal and State Government agencies, labor organizations, public interest groups, and emergency response representatives. The Committee established ground rules that would be implemented in the negotiated phase.

RegNeg focused on participation, decisionmaking, and consensus decisions. Throughout the entire process, a negotiation and consensus approach was undertaken. The decision to withdraw a training rule and initiate a qualification rule stemmed from the following guidelines:

• Qualification is an end; training is the means to an end.
• Qualification results from evaluation; training does not necessarily result in qualification.

The committee met several times from 1997 through 1999, when consensus on the final rule was reached.

The Final Rule was not prescriptive, and the resulting flexibility built into the performance-based rule made it difficult to measure operators’ compliance with the Rule. This led to the development of “protocols” to assist regulators in the evaluation of qualification programs. Protocols were developed after a series of public meetings in 2003; however, differences still existed between the pipeline industry and DOT regarding the implementation, inspection and subsequent enforcement of the operator qualification rule. Both groups committed the development of a national consensus standard on operator qualification, where the outstanding issues could be resolved and a technical basis for personnel qualifications could be established.

The pipeline industry approached ASME International seeking a sponsor for the development of a national consensus standard on pipeline operator qualification. The ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31 Committee formed the B31Q Project Team on Qualification of Pipeline Operators. This project team met for the first time in August 2003 and began the task of crafting a technically based standard for the qualification of pipeline personnel.

The purpose of this standard is to provide general and specific requirements for the qualification of pipeline personnel. The implementation of this standard is intended to minimize pipeline failures caused by human error. Suggestions for the improvement of this Standard are welcome and should be addressed to The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Secretary, B31 Main Committee, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. An additional paragraph will be added to summarize B31Q Project Team activities and results once their work is complete.

The timeline below provides an overview of the work and effort that has taken place since the Act of 1990 to present. Significant events and milestones are bolded.