Compliance with federal safety regulations is a cornerstone of safe and reliable infrastructure. For pipeline operators, technicians, and integrity personnel, the assumption of compliance can often feel secure; until an audit or investigation reveals gaps that lead to significant consequences. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) enforces pipeline safety standards rigorously, and a key insight from recent enforcement trends is that operators bear the ultimate responsibility for all work performed on their assets, including that done by contractors. This means that even if the physical work meets standards, inadequate documentation can result in enforcement actions, including civil penalties.

This reality underscores a critical lesson for those in corrosion control, cathodic protection (CP), and pipeline integrity roles: Compliance isn't solely about executing tasks like surveys, inspections, or repairs; it's about proving they were done correctly through verifiable records. Poor record keeping can expose operators to liability, especially when contractors are involved in maintenance activities such as CP system checks, coating assessments, or indirect surveys. In this article, we'll explore PHMSA's stance on operator accountability, common documentation pitfalls, real world examples of enforcement, and practical steps to build a records management system. By understanding these elements, field technicians and operators can better navigate regulatory demands and enhance overall pipeline safety.

At its core, PHMSA is the federal agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for regulating the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including natural gas and hazardous liquids via pipelines. Established to prevent incidents that could harm people, property, or the environment, PHMSA oversees more than 3 million miles of pipelines across the U.S. Its regulations are codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically Parts 192 for natural gas pipelines and 195 for hazardous liquid pipelines.

These regulations mandate that operators maintain comprehensive programs for operations, maintenance, and integrity management. For instance, under 49 CFR § 192.605 and § 195.402, operators must develop and follow written procedures for normal operations and maintenance, including those performed by contractors. This includes ensuring that all activities align with standards from organizations like the Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP, formerly NACE), such as SP0169 for control of external corrosion on underground or submerged metallic piping systems.

A key aspect is the Operator Qualification (OQ) program, outlined in 49 CFR Part 192 Subpart N and Part 195 Subpart G. OQ requires operators to identify "covered tasks". These are activities that affect pipeline integrity, such as installing CP rectifiers, conducting close-interval surveys (CIS), or performing holiday detection on coatings. And they must ensure that individuals performing them are qualified through training, evaluation, and documentation. Importantly, these requirements extend to contractors: Operators must verify that contractor personnel meet OQ standards and maintain records proving it.

In practical terms, this means field technicians involved in corrosion assessments must not only perform tasks competently but also ensure their work is documented in a way that ties back to the operator's procedures. Missing or incomplete records can turn a routine audit into a compliance nightmare, as PHMSA's enforcement focus has increasingly shifted toward verifiable proof of adherence rather than just the absence of incidents.

PHMSA's enforcement philosophy is clear: Operators are accountable for the entire pipeline system, regardless of who performs the work. This stems from the principle that operators hold the certificate or permit to operate the pipeline and thus bear the liability for safety and compliance. As stated in PHMSA guidance, if a contractor performs maintenance, their records become the operator's records. Failure to produce them promptly during an inspection or investigation can lead to citations.

This position is rooted in regulations like 49 CFR § 192.805 and § 195.505, which require operators to ensure through evaluation that all individuals, including contractors, are qualified for covered tasks. Records must include identification of the qualified individual, the tasks they are qualified for, qualification dates, and methods (written exams, performance evaluations, or on-the-job training). These records must be retained while the individual performs the task and for five years afterward, per § 192.807 and § 195.507.

For corrosion field technicians, this translates to scenarios like hiring a contractor for CP current requirement testing or guided wave ultrasonic testing. The operator must approve the contractor's procedures, verify OQ compliance, and integrate the contractor's documentation into their own system. PHMSA has emphasized in FAQs and enforcement guidance that operators cannot delegate this responsibility. Good intentions or verbal assurances from contractors are insufficient; only defensible records count.

This approach protects the public by ensuring traceability. In an incident, investigators need to reconstruct events quickly, and gaps in records can hinder that process, potentially escalating minor issues into major violations.

Documentation failures often stem from overlooked details in contractor management, and they can be categorized into several key areas that directly impact pipeline integrity work.

First, Operator Qualification records are a frequent vulnerability. Operators may assume contractors handle their own OQ documentation, but PHMSA requires operators to maintain these records themselves or ensure immediate access. Common issues include missing proof of task specific qualifications, expired certifications, or failure to requalify after procedural changes.

Second, maintenance and work records tied to specific assets are critical. For example, after a contractor conducts a DCVG survey to identify coating defects, the operator must have records showing the survey methodology, results, and any follow up actions. Incomplete pipeline attributes (such as material specifications, installation dates, or corrosion history) can also trigger penalties if not updated post-work.

Third, vendor generated data poses risks if not validated. Systems like data loggers for CP potential readings or software for integrity assessments must produce auditable outputs that the operator can defend. If a contractor uses unapproved tools or fails to calibrate equipment per standards, the operator is liable.

Finally, oversight and verification records are often neglected. Operators must document their review of contractor work, including site visits, procedure approvals, and quality checks. Without these, PHMSA may view the operator as having abdicated responsibility.

These issues aren't abstract; they appear repeatedly in enforcement data, highlighting the need for proactive management.

PHMSA's enforcement actions illustrate how documentation lapses can lead to substantial penalties, even when no incident occurs. Over the past few years, cases have focused on operators' failure to produce or maintain contractor-related records, reinforcing that liability rests squarely with the operator.

One notable case involved an operator fined $50,500 for not identifying "casing removal" as a covered task in their OQ program and failing to ensure contractors were qualified to perform it. During an inspection, PHMSA observed unqualified contractors at work, and the operator could not produce supporting documentation. This violation stemmed from reliance on industry practices not explicitly incorporated into regulations, underscoring the need for operator specific OQ lists.

In another instance, an operator received a $63,900 penalty for not following their own OQ program by delaying requalification of an employee after unsatisfactory performance on installing a CP rectifier. While this involved an employee, similar issues arise with contractors when operators fail to monitor and document performance evaluations.

Larger penalties have been proposed in high-profile cases, such as the record $9.6 million fine against Panther Operating Company in 2026 for violations related to a 2023 oil spill. While the core issues involved integrity management and leak detection, incomplete operations and maintenance records (potentially including contractor data) contributed to the enforcement. PHMSA required a compliance order for system evaluations, emphasizing record validation.

Warnings have also been common for record keeping lapses, like failing to provide inspectors with proof of contractor qualifications or daily task assignments. In one 2018 cluster of cases, fines totaled $588,000 across operators for OQ related failures, including missing training records.

These examples, drawn from PHMSA's enforcement transparency portal, show a pattern: Penalties escalate when records are unavailable during audits, even if the work was competent. For corrosion technicians, this means ensuring CP survey data is fully documented and traceable.

Step-by-Step Guide to Managing Contractor Records

To mitigate these risks, operators should implement a systematic approach to records management. Here's a practical, step-by-step procedure tailored for pipeline maintenance, including corrosion control activities.

Maintaining compliant records isn't without hurdles, especially in field environments.

One challenge is contractor variability: Not all are equally disciplined in documentation. Overcome this by including record keeping clauses in contracts, specifying formats (PDF with metadata) and submission timelines. Require training on your system before work begins.

Another is data overload from multiple vendors. Digital platforms like cloud based integrity management software can centralize records, with features for OQ tracking and audit trails. Avoid silos by integrating contractor portals.

Resource constraints in smaller operations can lead to oversights. Prioritize high-risk tasks like those in high-consequence areas (HCAs) and use templates for consistency.

Finally, evolving regulations (such as PHMSA's 2025 updates to civil penalty calculations and case file disclosures) require ongoing vigilance. Stay informed through PHMSA alerts and industry webinars, updating programs accordingly.

By addressing these proactively, operators can turn potential pitfalls into strengths.

In summary, PHMSA's enforcement underscores that pipeline compliance hinges on provable actions through documentation. Operators must treat contractor records as their own, ensuring OQ compliance, asset tied maintenance logs, and verifiable data. By following structured procedures and mitigating common challenges, field technicians and integrity teams can enhance risk assessments, prevent incidents, and avoid costly penalties. Ultimately, this focus on documentation empowers better decision making, from prioritizing CP upgrades to refining external corrosion direct assessments (ECDA), fostering a safer pipeline industry.

Established in 2011, Roberts Corrosion Services, LLC delivers comprehensive, turn-key cathodic protection and corrosion control solutions nationwide. Our end-to-end expertise encompasses design and inspection, installation and repair, surveys and remedial work. We provide drilling services for deep anode installations and a full laboratory for analysis of samples and corrosion coupons, as well as custom CP Rectifier manufacturing.

While our initial focus was on the Appalachian Basin area, we complete field work all over the US. We are a licensed contractor in many states and can complete a wide range of services.

Our biggest strength is in our flexibility for our clients. Solutions and Results.

Let us know how we can help.

Website

LinkedIn

Location: 39.251882, -81.047440

(304) 869-4007