SUBMITTED BY

ISSUE / ITEMS OF INTEREST

COMMENTS

Joe Finnan, PA PUC email to R. Sanders 9/24/01

A question has come up regarding the qualifications of personnel who may have to assist another operator due to an unusual occurrence or incident. 
a.)  How should we treat their qualifications?

I have spoken to the PA gas operators and have not received a definitive answer.

b.)  May OQ requirements be waived in an emergency?

c.)  May an operator accept another operator's OQ in such a case? 

This could be complicated by operators who would have to cross state lines to assist another operator in an emergency.

Chris Hoidal OPS WE Reg email to R. Sanders 9//18/01

When is an operator performing maintenance on an existing pipeline facility and when is the work considered new construction?  Some examples are:

• An operator is going to loop a 1 - 200 mile line segment with the same or larger diameter pipe.
•  The operator plans to keep the existing line segment in service?
• The operator will abandon the existing line due to systemic corrosion problems?
• What if the length of the new pipe is 1,000 feet?    Less than 1,000 feet?
• What if an operator is boring under a river crossing to install a new piece of pipe?
• What if there is nothing wrong with the existing pipe crossing except that it is susceptible to erosion & the operator is being proactive by installing a bore?
• What if the old pipe is no good & it is to be abandoned?

      This problem is further elaborated on in the following excerpts taken from an email attachment that lists OQ issues:

• (Company) says that all of these tasks are not "covered tasks" because the answer to #4 of the four-part test is, "no."
• (What constitutes new construction" was discussed for quite a while covering different aspects. Main issue is for line repair and replacement. Some examples are if an operator is replacing many joints of pipe (possibly miles). Would the work of stringing, welding, laying, and backfilling count as new construction and only the tie-ins count as affecting the operation or integrity, or would everything count as maintenance?
• And, would there be a distinct point that determines what constitutes new construction and maintenance?  Other examples are putting in a new road crossing or river crossing.
• (Company) also has an example where they are replacing an entire line with new pipe.  It is in a new ROW, so it clearly is new construction, but would it also be new construction of it is a take-up and re-lay?

Possible Solutions:

Look at the method of accounting.  Where does the operator charge the expenditure - capital expense or maintenance?

Look at the scope of the project.  Are pieces of pipe being replaced / repaired / reconditioned due to integrity concerns?  If so, maintenance; if not, new construction.

• Defining In-service vs. Out-of-service (Question #4 in Four-part Test):  Many companies are stating in their written OQ plans that if a piece of equipment, pipe or breakout tank is isolated from the rest of the system, that it can no longer affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline system and, therefore, does not require people to be qualified to perform tasks on that piece of equipment.  This problem is further elaborated on in the following excerpts taken from an email attachment that lists OQ issues:
• (Company) and I understand other operators state that if they remove the tank from the pipeline system, it cannot affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline system, so the answer to #4 of the four-part test is "no," and those people do not need to be qualified.
• (Company) states that breakout tank tasks that are performed on tanks that are disconnected from the pipeline system by removing the valves from the receipt and delivery lines are not covered under the OQ Rule.  The tasks of reconnecting the tank to the system would be covered under OQ since this task would involve the integrity of the pipeline (also goes for the disconnect).

Possible Solutions:
a.)  OPS should come out strong on this issue.  A breakout tank like a pipe segment that has been disconnected from the rest of the system for some sort of inspection or maintenance and will subsequently be reconnected to the original system is still part of the original system.  Therefore, all personnel performing work on that element need to be qualified under the OQ Rule.

Identifying Specific Covered Tasks:  Many operators have not developed a list of covered tasks or their list is too general in nature.  For example, some operators have identified cathodic protection of their buried facilities as being a covered task.  This is too general.

Possible Solution:

• Define a covered task in terms of the most specific paragraphs in each section of the code.

Dallas Rea, OPS Atlanta email to Fred Joyner on 5/3/01

Contractor employee testing, qualifying, and record retention will be conducted by a 3rd party company. 

• Apparently this is a well-established company that will be used by many companies.  It was stated that individual contractor records will be made accessible on demand, within 15 minutes via Internet communications.
• (R. Sanders):  There are going to be a few of these efforts popping up over the country, and it was reiterated at AGA & SGA meetings this week that more operators would be using consortiums.  This should make our lives easier.  There is still a lot of flushing out by the operators and many are changing their approaches after initial evaluation and testing efforts.  Please send names, addresses, etc. on these consortiums to Sharon so she can compile update for all states & regions. 

Pete Katchmar, OPS Denver to R. Sanders & C. Hoidal on 5/9/01

a.)  Is it okay to disconnect a breakout tank from a pipeline by removing a spool piece or a valve from the incoming line & the outgoing line (to perform an out-of-service API 653 inspection), perform an inspection & repair the tank, if needed, by non-OQ qualified personnel?

•  (Company) and I understand other operators state that if they remove the tank from the pipeline system, it cannot affect the operation or integrity of the pipeline system, so the answer to #4 of the four-part test is "no," and those people do not need to be qualified.
• (Company) states that breakout tank tasks that are performed on tanks that are disconnected from the pipeline system by removing the valves from the receipt and delivery lines are not covered under the OQ Rule.
• The tasks of reconnecting the tank to the system would be covered under OQ since this task would involve the integrity of the pipeline (also goes for the disconnect).
• (Schwarzkopf):  Pete hit it! Only comment…in problem2 the initial paragraph mentions the problem of a company taking a pipeline segment or feature (MLV, regulator, etc.) out of service (by temporarily disconnecting, etc.), but when Pete further expands it he focused only on the breakout tank issue rather than the other issues.  I'm afraid that people will read the 1st part covering everything, but then just focus on only the breakout tanks & disregard the other items since they aren't mentioned in the detailed explanations and possible solutions.  Going further on this, it seems like industry is stretching this issue further out during every inspection.  It started out as breakout tanks with everything else under OQ and subsequently gas operators started to say that removing a piece of equipment from the pipe but working on it on the ROW (or inside the maintenance building at a station) made it non-OQ, next it was isolating it from the gas source made it non-OQ.  If this line of reason is followed to its natural conclusion, an operator could say that if they shut in a compressor station then any maintenance they do on the compressor station is non-OQ since it is not transporting gas.
• (Katchmar):  Exactly, I was just trying to get something out quickly. All involved in Phase 2 OQ inspections have seen this.  It is being done across the board…gas & liquids.  OPS needs to issue guidance…which is why I made it a priority.  Richard knows it is a large issue with inspectors & knows it is not just about BO tanks.  When the issue comes up, I'm certain all items will be discussed.
• (Sanders):  I have forwarded 3 or 4 issues to HQ and have been asked by Stacey to get with Barbara and see what we can do concerning some of the issues all of us have been talking about!…will try to get with Barbara next week for comments.

What is OPS' position on the difference between "new construction" and "maintenance?"

Can an operator weld up, coat, pressure test X amount of pipe on the ROW by non-OQ qualified personnel?  How much pipe?

• (Company) says that all of these tasks are not "covered tasks" because the answer to #4 of the four-part test is "no."
• "What constitutes new construction" was discussed for quite a while covering different aspects.  Main issue is for line repair and replacement.  Some examples are if an operator is replacing many joints of pipe (possibly miles).  Would the work of stringing, welding, laying, and backfilling count as new construction and only the tie-ins count as affecting the operation or integrity, or would everything count as maintenance?
• And, would there be a distinct point that determines what constitutes new construction and maintenance?  Other examples are putting in a new road crossing or river crossing.
• (Company) also has an example where they are replacing an entire line with new pipe.  It is in a new ROW, so it clearly is new construction, but would it also be new construction if it is a take-up and re-lay?

Would a person who has been OQ qualified for a covered task need to undergo an OQ qualification review if subsequent to their qualification, but before 28 October 2002, they are involved in an accident/incident dealing with that task?

• (Company) plans on performing the OQ evaluations prior to October 2002, but not making them effective until October 2002, mainly due to their requalification time interval for subsequent qualification.
• The opinions of the OPS and state engineers ranged from:
• An OQ review of the person would be needed because they had already been evaluated for the task, to
• An OQ review of the person was not needed because it is prior to 28 October 2002 when the personnel performing covered tasks need to be qualified.

Would a person be able to perform a covered task prior to 28 October 2002 if they have failed the OQ evaluation for the task & have not successfully completed a new OQ eval for the task?

How many times will a person be allowed to fail to qualify before they are removed from trying to become qualified for a specific covered task?

Dallas Rea, OPS Atlanta email to Fred Joyner on 5/21/01

a.)  (Company's) OQ plan references contractor OQ programs.

(Company) will approve contractor OQ programs, and will audit these programs.  No specific contractors are listed in the plan.  (Company) plans on handling these by use of a contract appendix(ces).  The plan conveys that (Company) will maintain a list of contractors that have Company approved OQ plans.  Prior to starting contractor work, the plan states that (Company) will meet with the contractor to identify any covered tasks, and to ensure that only qualified contract employees will be performing those tasks.

Contractors are responsible for qualifying contractor employees & maintaining their records, per the contractor's OQ program.

Contractor will provide contractor employee records upon (Company's) request.

(Company's) plan defines a Pipeline Facility (code language), but their plan has another definition:  Operation or Maintenance (O&M) Task which is defined as "any task/activity performed on a Pipeline Facility where the Pipeline Facility presently has or has had natural gas, hazardous liquids and or carbon dioxide present."

• I read this to convey that construction & installation tasks performed on a multi-mile pipe segment replacement project would not be covered (except for related tie-in type work.) 
• The local (Company) rep read it the same way.

Time intervals for individual tasks have not yet been finalized.

The OQ plan states that it will be reviewed once every 3 yrs.

Dallas Rea, OPS Atlanta email to Fred Joyner on 8/7/01

a.)   (Company's) requalification period for employees is between 1 and 5 years (max is 5 years).  Contractor personnel requalification period is 2 years.

• We expressed our concern that a 5-year max time is a long time, and that many of the plans that we're familiar with have a 3-year max interval. 
• (Company's) response was that 5 years is adequate, and that some companies have a 6-year time interval.

b.)  (Company's) definition of a pipeline facility relates only to components, and therefore, is not consistent with the code definition, which includes right-of-way, buildings, other equipment used in transportation.

• By inclusion of this term into their "maintenance" definition, any pipe or valve that has been physically disconnected from the pipeline facility (components), would not "pass" part 1 of the four-part test, and therefore, would not be covered under OQ.
• Based on conversations with (Company) and based on their OQ plan definition, the following tasks would not be covered:
• Testing (in a compressor building, or on the right-of-way) a relief valve that has been temporarily removed from the piping;
• Re-coating (over the ditch) a 12 mile segment of pipeline that has been physically disconnected from the pipeline at each end.
• This second issue appears to be identical to ones that have previously been identified in other OQ plan inspections; for example, disconnecting breakout tanks from the pipeline prior to maintenance work.
• To my knowledge, there has been no determination by OPS to address this issue, which appears to be industry-wide.  OPS needs to be timely and consistent in enforcing this, or if not enforceable, declare such and move on.  If plans need amending because of this issue, now is the time to write NOA's (the OQ plan deadline was 4/27/01, and qualifications of individuals must be completed by 10/28/02).
• (R. Sanders):  Good job! You are finding issues that I was concerned about, but was of the opinion that industry had the regulation written in such a way as to allow them to control covered tasks…It would appear that specific definitions or at least enforcement opinions are necessary as indicated by your email.  SGA is planning an update telecon in the next few weeks & these items would be invaluable for discussion.  It would even be better to see where OPS wants us to go concerning "Operation and Integrity," where new construction ends and maintenance begins, and what is an expectable time period for re-evaluation, etc.
• (R. Sanders):  One area that still concerns me is that I am still receiving calls from small contractors who are saying that major company "A" requires me to have a plan if I want to continue working for them.  The time is up and these plans should be available for all to see.  When you check large companies (or all companies), be sure to see if the operator requires contractors/subcontractors to provide their own OQ plan(s).  If they do, ask to see a list of contractors doing work and a copy of the contractor(s) plan.  These contractor plans should be a part of the operator's plan.  These could lead to some heavy civil penalties and rightfully so.
• (B. Bertges):  It seems to me that to be consistent in how we have handled monitoring the contractor's drug & alcohol plan was to put the burden on the operator to audit contractor plans for compliance, since we have no authority over the contractor.  I have not seen contractor's D&A plans incorporated into an operator's D&A plan (some major operators have up to 1000 contractors on their approved vendor list).  I would have expected contractors' OQ plans to be handled the same way.  I am reviewing for the first time an operator's OQ plan.  Is this a new change in policy?  I am currently reviewing (Company) offshore plan.
• (R. Seeley):  I tend to agree with R. Sanders' logic…if they are having the contractor do the qualification for them, then they should have proof of that available for us to review.
• (B. Bertges):  I am not disagreeing with the logic.  The operator must demonstrate that it has established an auditing process to assure the contractor's plan complies with the OQ requirements.  This auditing process should be documented by the operator.  An operator could comply by incorporating each approved contractor's plan, but I doubt most do.  So…are you saying they should?
• (R. Seeley):  I am not sure what your question is.  An operator can either accept a contractor's own OQ plan or require contractors to follow theirs.  Either way, we need to be sure they comply with regs.
• (B. Bertges):  Restated R. Sanders comments above and added that he has been involved with HQ when they established the D&A inspection protocol for the standard Part 199 inspection, which is similar to the OQ plan inspection.  They did not look at the individual contractor plans as part of the inspection.  As it was explained to the operator, it was their responsibility to assure compliance, not OPS's, since OPS neither has any authority over a contractor nor the resources to look at every contractor's plan.  The only exception would be during a post accident investigation.  Likewise, to my knowledge OPS never required the operator to have a copy or make the contractor's plan a part of their (operator's) plan.  What we required was that the contractors' plans be reviewed by the operator to assure compliance.  How and where the operator made this audit was left up to the operator.  What I understand an inspector should be looking for was to check the "operator's contractor auditing process."  This process should be included in the operator's written procedures of their plan, as well as documentation showing that an approved contractor's plan was adequate, but not for OPS to review the contractor's plan.  We should be consistent in how OPS assures contractor plans are in compliance.
• (F. Joyner):  I think I agree with Bill & Richard, except that I don't think the contractor's plan should be a part of the operator's plan for us to audit, unless re request them to prove they have agreed to the plan.

Hans Shieh, OPS KC email to R. Sanders on 6/17/01

a.) (Company) provided each of us a set of drawings in which they defined what facilities would require qualified individuals to work on, and what would not.  Basically, on a long section of transmission line, if there are 2 valves used to isolate the section, and that section is blown down, then that section of pipe is still considered pipe that would require qualified individuals to work on.

• However, if those valves are physically removed from the system, and that section of pipe in between is capped off and still lying in the ditch, they feel that it is not a piece of equipment that requires qualified individuals to work on.  They feel that if you physically remove all sources of pressure, then it is termed out of service, and anybody can work on them.
• This is similar to the (Company) breakout tank scenario, in which they are using part of the Preamble as justification for this.
• Is this interpretation of the Preamble correct:

b.)  In regard to using WPHR, how far does the operator have to go back?

• (Company) is using 5 years.  Is this adequate, not enough?
• What do we want to see?

c.)  Some of this plan did not include a lot of the "who, what, when, where, and how." 

• (Company) indicated that a lot of that was in the "Implementation Plan" that was still undergoing some work.  There is no problem with having the 2 separated, correct?
• We did not see the Implementation Plan at the time of this review.  WGP personnel indicated that because they are 4 different companies trying to merge as one, they felt that they had to have a very general OQ plan because if they were too specific, they felt they could not address all of the concerns of all the different companies.  (R. Sanders already sent reply to Pete in regard to last question--listed here because it was a question/concern raised during the review.)