Led by the Distribution Contractors Association (DCA), the coalition was established in 2016.
The current minimum OQ regulatory requirements and the lack of a specific industry OQ standard have created redundant, and often inconsistent, qualification expectations within the gas utility industry. The primary goal of the OQIP is to increase the integrity, consistency, quality, and reliability of the core competency aspect of each qualification, while recognizing the need for each operator to ensure workers are qualified according to their specific needs and requirements.
To raise the bar for operator qualification by establishing an elevated level of common OQ practices and increase consistency between programs.
The OQIP is divided in to three primary sections: People, Process, and Program Validation (i.e., audits).
The initial OQ Rule in 49 CFR 192, Subpart N, lacked specificity. As such, there was an early divergence in program expectations, requirements, and associated processes. Prior to the OQIP, portability efforts focused on achieving 100% portability of an OQ record without regard to operator specific requirements that must be addressed.
The OQIP Coalition members have focused on holding three (3) proof-of-concept pilot programs across the United States. The initial OQIP pilot program participants include New Mexico Gas Company of Albuquerque, NM, Puget Sound Energy of Bellevue, WA, and SEMCO Energy Gas Company of Port Huron, MI. Click here to learn more about the OQIP Pilot Programs.
The OQIP has collaborated with individual members of the ASME B31Q Technical Committee and other industry stakeholders to develop a consensus on elements incorporated in the OQ Integrity Process. Questions regarding the adoption or incorporation of the OQIP into industry standards and recommended practices should be directed to those organizations. However, unified efforts to develop and adopt model programs and standards in the industry does benefit all stakeholders.
There is a realization that the OQIP may not work the same way for all regions. Each region will move forward as they can and in alignment with their State Regulatory Agency. The purpose of OQIP is to raise the integrity, validity, and credibility associated with the delivery of operator qualifications to industry personnel, and this remains consistent with the attitudes and trends of the various State agencies. It is the desire of the OQIP to see a convergence of consistent requirements throughout the industry as model programs and standards mature.
The NY White Paper has raised the level of discussion and engagement around many of the issues which the OQIP seeks to address. The regulatory impact of the NY White Paper is yet to be realized, however, the NY White Paper and the OQIP both align in recognition of the need for a model program with increased expectations that exceed the current minimum Federal OQ regulations.
Each operator is different in their needs and the maturity of their programs, however, the OQIP can bring additional benefits of consistency between OQ programs for contractor core qualifications, the ability to increase resource focus on operator specific OQ requirements for contractors, more predictable expectations when audited by state inspectors, and mutual aid benefits. Overall, increasing integrity and program effectiveness is a matter of continuous improvement for all organization in the industry.
PSMS and OQIP are mutually beneficial as both are premised on a continuous improvement process. The OQIP Coalition has heard some operators report they are leveraging their OQ Program as part of their PSMS implementation.
OQ records will be retained by the entity that originates the original record (operator or third-party service provider). The OQIP (and Governance thereof) will only house a unique ID generator for entities and individuals participating in the OQ Integrity Process. A small sub-team of the OQIP Coalition is working to develop a secure and consistent process for the transfer of universal records on core qualifications between participating entities.
Leadership and behavioral changes. Just as with the topic of Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS) and the critical importance of executive support for an effective safety culture, those same elements must be addressed for the OQIP. The OQIP is not a mandatory process. While it may appear easier to stay with the status quo and only comply with the minimum regulatory requirements, it is the position of the OQIP that as an industry we must be proactive and move to voluntarily raise the bar on operator qualification.
The OQIP Coalition membership, in conjunction with the formation of a formal OQIP Governance program, as outlined in the OQIP website.
Trainer, Proctor, Evaluator, and Auditors
The OQIP Coalition membership researched industry best practices and reached these requirements by consensus (see list of membership).
• Mandatory requirements to proctor any tests
• Trainer and evaluator prerequisites to include a combination of education, training, and field experience
• Trainers and evaluators must maintain and refresh their credentials
• OQ programs are subject to audits and program effectiveness reviews
The OQIP does not mandate the use of third-party proctors and evaluators. It does, however, require the use of properly trained and credentialed proctors and evaluators in accordance with the OQIP document.
The decision to rely on internal or third-party personnel is an operator specific decision. Company employees have served in roles for QA/QC, Audits, Inspections, etc. and have frequently held prominent roles in managing quality for their company and within the energy industry.
Through the performance and adherence of the OQIP process document which includes requirements for internal audits and independent audits.
The Independent Auditor requirements of OQIP provides additional oversight to ensure companies are operating with integrity and in a manner consistent with the OQIP requirements.
Evaluators are not required to be operator qualified as OQ is currently defined in 49 CFR 192, Subpart N. However, evaluators must be vetted and able to substantiate and demonstrate the experience, knowledge, skill, and abilities necessary to conduct evaluations effectively and accurately through observation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing precludes an operator or contractor from requiring the evaluator to qualify for tasks they evaluate.
No. On the contrary, it raises the bar for all participants involved in the OQ process. The current OQ Rule does not provide for any specific credentialing requirements for evaluators, however, the OQIP does set credentialing requirements. Adhering to OQIP requirements will improve consistency between evaluators. The OQIP creates separate and distinct requirements between a qualified individual, instructor, proctor, and evaluator.
The OQIP provides specific requirements for Program Effectiveness Reviews to ensure that programs and related processes, including training, are achieving the desired results for safety, competency, and quality. More information on this element can be found in the Program Validation section of the OQIP.
The OQIP Coalition reviewed academic and industry norms for credentialing personnel on technical and administrative activities. Extensive discussions took place within the OQIP Coalition. In the end, multiple options were agreed and decided on. The goal was to provide flexibility in the path to conformance to recognize the diverse variations of education, skill, and experience that might be brought to bear during the credentialing process.
The Federal Regulations established a minimum requirement for the qualification of pipeline personnel. Over the years, PHMSA has recognized deficiencies in the current regulation and has attempted to expand the scope of the requirements. For a variety of reasons, these efforts have been unsuccessful or incomplete. However, during these regulatory processes numerous individual operators and trade groups acknowledged the need to increase the standard at which the industry operates. The OQ Integrity Process embraces many of these topics, but in a manner that is driven by the industry and not through regulation.
The ASME B31Q represents over 15 years of industry-level work to establish a consensus on the identification and definition of tasks, and the core competency requirements for each task. The ASME is the collective work of operators, contractors, regulators, consultants, service providers, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders across multiple industry segments.
No. All companies and industry segments can benefit from the OQIP. By adopting the ASME B31Q, common tasks have been identified and defined for operations involving natural gas, hazardous liquids, gas distribution, transmission pipelines, and other facilities.
The OQ Integrity Process was designed and intended to be used based on industry standards to promote the consistency and the transferability of certain portions of a qualification record. As such, the principles, and processes for the OQIP can be effectively applied to any program. However, the OQIP was specifically developed with the intent for participating operators to utilize the B31Q to promote consistency in the industry.
Yes. In the original draft of the OQIP, the team identified 65 tasks that were most performed by contractors. However, as interest in the OQIP has grown with multiple stakeholders and across multiple industry segments, the OQIP was expanded to cover all tasks identified by the ASME B31Q.
The ASME B31Q provides an industry level standard for identifying tasks and core competency requirements. It also provides guidance, structure, and considerations for processes without setting specific requirements for the administration of a qualification program. One of the goals of the OQIP is to establish consistent expectations for some of the specific administrative aspects of how the industry qualifies workers. The OQIP relies on a layered model, with each layer providing support to the other. The OQIP adopts the B31Q standards and guidance and then outlines specific minimum administrative processes regarding the delivery of training, testing, evaluations, and other related processes.
Yes. The OQIP is designed with the intent that each operator will require additional operator-specific training or assessments in addition to the core competency requirements.
No. The OQIP does not replace the operator’s OQ Plan or program. Each operator is required to establish a written OQ Plan in accordance with state and federal laws. The OQIP establishes recommended practices to increase the integrity and effectiveness of the operator’s overall OQ program.
No. The OQIP requires that training material be developed using industry-recognized practices and processes for the identification of learning objectives and the development of training content. As such, the OQIP recommends that content be developed utilizing recognized methodologies, such as those established by IACET (International Association for Continuing Education and Training), ANSI (American National Standards Institute), Association for Talent Development (ATD), or similar industry recognized and accredited programs intended for the development of training and educational content.
The goal of the OQIP is two-fold: (1) Increase the quality and integrity of the OQ process in order to meet operator and regulatory expectations, and (2) decrease redundancy in qualification processes so that contractors may leverage valid qualifications with multiple operators. To achieve these goals, all stakeholders must have trust and confidence in the quality and integrity of each qualification record.
The OQIP addresses the topic of technical competencies in two parts; the portion of an activity or task wherein the knowledge skill and ability to perform that task should be universally true for all workers (the core competency), and the portion that may require additional knowledge, skill, and ability based on the equipment utilized, the environment where the task is performed, or the policy and procedures established by an operator.
Yes, but not in the manner that it has been traditionally defined in the industry. Traditional use of the word portability has meant an all-inclusive sharing of a complete qualification record, which may or may not fully align with an operator’s specific requirements. Under the OQIP, it is only the qualification of the core competency record that is transferrable. An operator must also ensure that a contractor or other worker meets the additional operator-specific qualification requirements.
By establishing an increased industry expectation for both the content and the processes involved in a qualification record, the quality and integrity of the qualification records for core competencies can be established and recognized by operators. These competencies align with industry-standard processes as outlined by the ASME B31Q. The content providers, operators and contractors participating in the OQIP each voluntarily agree to develop content and administer their programs in a manner that is compliant with the expectations of the OQIP.
The OQIP leaves the decision on allowable language alternatives to each company based on the needs and demographics of their organization. However, all qualifications must provide evidence of the individual’s knowledge, skill, and ability to perform the designated task accurately and safely, which includes the clear and accurate communication of information.
The OQIP requires each content provider to identify, develop, and include appropriate AOC’s in their content and programs. Since AOC requirements and expectations may vary, the OQIP states that it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure any unique or specific AOC requirements and reaction protocols (for generic AOC’s or task-specific AOC’s) are included in the operator specific portion of a worker’s qualification.
No, it is not required by regulation; however, to raise the bar and provide a common program that might be accepted at an industry level, the OQIP has incorporated audit and Program Effectiveness reviews.
The OQIP Coalition has drafted a standardized audit document template as part of the OQIP that can be customized to meet each organization’s needs.
The OQIP Coalition has drafted a standardized audit document. Evidence of conformance is outlined in the OQIP audit template.
Please refer to Section 7.4 and 7.5 of the OQIP document, which outlines specifications relating to audits and record keeping.
Yes, independent auditors should hold credentials that evidence their knowledge and experience as an auditor in a manner consistent with acceptable industry practices, and they must acknowledge their understanding of the OQIP requirements and audit process.
The OQ service provider who is a member of the OQIP process will be charged with the responsibility to house the findings of their customer (OQIP user), and to address any potential actions necessary to bring their OQIP customer into compliance with the OQIP requirements.
It is the intent of the OQIP Coalition to maintain and provide access to a list of participating organizations and credentialed participants.
No, it is not required by regulation; however, to raise the bar and provide a common program acceptable to many we added Program Effectiveness reviews.
The OQIP is not intended to be 100% portable. The foundation of the portability concept in the OQIP is an ‘80/20 rule’. Under this concept, the core competencies and universally true aspects of qualifications for a task (say, 80% of a qualification) become portable, and the unique requirements of an operator (say, 20%) are not portable due to their specific alignment to the operator’s O&M and SOPs.
The primary goal of the OQIP is to bring integrity, consistency, and quality to the core competency aspect of each qualification, while recognizing the need for each operator to ensure workers are also qualified according to their specific needs and requirements.
No, although an operator may choose to manage OQ records in that format. The intent is to have a standardized process and documents that will be the same for everyone and integrate both the core competency qualification and the operator specific qualification for a qualified individual in the same OQ record for that specific operator.
Git et laborro eum quam fugit am aut re, sae magnimende quam, si quatior ruptate?
Cuscips anihiliqui ommos sitatiam laborem. Luptam dit qui recatendam, simet, core pro mincim acid eumqui consequatia velibus mi, que di nis autendi te millabo. Ipid mo to ipsa sa inverem odiatur most occus aliquis ut volut estia con pre latia inis volupta tionecum aligendi del moluptatias
Giatiost, vollut laborerae parunt audae volupic te niae nossitius esequamus ma et eatur. Quia voluptum il isiminv enecae la duci omnim ut quam ut lam, et aciataquate volupti onsecte ntoratur sus dist modi doluptatur, nestis ipsandi ariones qui utecus, senda voluptat abo.
At experiorepro volumquia que de maxim intiusdae. Ed quam ium quis aut aut aliquisimus maio ellat lab int il ipsundam acilignatur recturit vellecta debit, ipis eos sit volut aut aut odi oditasp itestrum volore conseni enduntia.
Illoribus moleseniatur aliquodic tet venihil lessitam inieturit ium harum nonsequid?
Et dus alignit et fuga. Itatest, saperit ex ex et, apelique modiaecupti volo et quiatur, voluptisit entiasi muscipsam exeruptatet unto debit unt plabo. Cepre, omnis eum voluptatur ant.
As volore quas dolestrundes vit, volo coruptas rem rescid mi, tempostrum que landae santiun totatem simaximus eum explit, est, viducitas aut earibus iliquis ipsapid entur? Occusan isquid unditiumet volut que moloreped modit as doluptamus derferrum endunt.
Num ium esed quo comnihicimus vitaqui?
Beat etur at ad quia nat enihiciat rempostia idunt voloreped modipsunt quis molupta num quate voles netur? Quidit, od que nos doloribus.
Faceriore dolest faceptature sam quam que di dolorestiati cumquam quissumquo omnienes nis modion cus ut pedissu mquati optatem excea quaesto omnimet maio dipsume nditas sita seditium acea se non et, volupta volendi consed et recum ipsae. Mus velliqui si ut es mil ipiciis exceaquat.
Nusdandis provid et quid esequia velest qui ut ut reped quae sa pro inulleculpa aut volupta?
Tectori quibusanit, aliquatet voloris sitam dolenest, volorecuptis same audictur aborum que corepudi tem volutem intusdam sanda dolut optiati cuptatum harum que ea vent velignatur magnatia nostotas pa ipsaper ferestioris aut eumquo et officab il et as est volorec turiae voluptatiam resedia qui volor andis adipsam in nim aut
Exeriscimus nim dit doluptatis earchicat lam explaut pro tesciis est, il in nihit offic tet eatis vero eveles?
Sum veritat emperecto et ex etus sed quossint ad ut aut apid magnihil inciae nulparchil es si dolupiet pores quiscim enessit atincilibus ut acepudicia incipsunti cus peria sum, culliae porum ero blandig natur, iusanduciae re cusante ssinullorem et ma is commolore prorro quae. Sed et quiae. As dio ma inullore cum eicia cus eumquaspe laute velenia quos aut rectistrum, sum que sim quiatem oloressin recatusdae quo odignis el ipsunt quis qui omniantem faciam.
Cone poremque lic torrum, sedio quo cus, quam et volorem voluptur?
Ape vid quae premquasi alicipienest quia nonsed quiatur suntissitem rem qui as est, sum evere poribus eum et quiam fugitatqui ommolorit exceptat. Quam ipienimpos et essimus dent, officti busapid exercim que volut magnistotae.
Quiatia everupt usament officitas voluptibus et ad eatin conseque dolori qui dolesti umenem fuga?
Et fuga. Nequate estiorestia si apediae qui blabore iumquam que volecta si officiae rest, qui temporeium sumquae ritior sa dolendis eum volores ad quia quo tem aut occate quam corum voluptaque cus ad ullo optatem sitatur sus.
Hillorem imagniat harum latur?
Poreptas ipsamet omnimaion est arum ulparion eaquates dolo et aut et, ipsa dolum iunt quam, intem quas et et eiunt estem. Ut dollam laut acepe ne nonseque nam, qui officidis vellece rnatessuntio qui aut exceptam alitis quidipiet lab ipsam.
Nonsequi siti que vendit dolupta nos dolupti onsequat aut modions eceatque labor secum quis aut into?
Odi to enimo exersped quunt ut pos sim il iur? Lendipsa imporro invelec eptaecatur. Parum la si blabore pudae. Ut am volore ad quam, veribus. Musandio evelibu sdantiate lam experiat ommolorporro mint laborro quam sequam serspi.
Aboressume evellan ditiumqui ressintia vendus, cumendenis aborum eatem?
Ut que velitis aceperibeate pos sit mo volupturia di dolorer emquis eaquo que renihil elicia et as quaspic tem quo volutat umquaep raeprore natempor aut fugitectio blam, volorro tem re rerum et officipsunt. Maiores vendunt ipsanis intiore ndundaesciis adit veni delenihite. Pudam, sunt ipsantio occus dolori tecto millorro es pratur, quam quam ium vendis volupit molorib ustius santis di vent. Axim re nimolor eicae. Officidenis il incit, sitat apitiuntis denis incidentur cus.