{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220151005","title":"TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-10-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.805(g).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220151005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220151005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220151005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220151005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.805(g). The case was opened on 2015-10-13 and is reported as closed as of 2017-08-24. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220151005_Final Order_08242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Final%20Order_08242017.pdf\n\n220151005_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Final%20Order_08242017_text.pdf\n\n220151005_NOPV PCO_10132015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_NOPV%20PCO_10132015.pdf\n\n220151005_NOPV PCO_10132015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_NOPV%20PCO_10132015_text.pdf\n\n220151005_Operator Post Hearing Response_04152016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Response_04152016.pdf\n\n220151005_Operator_Response_to_Notice_and_Request_for_Hearing_and_Request_for_Case_Documents_11112015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Operator_Response_to_Notice_and_Request_for_Hearing_and_Request_for_Case_Documents_11112015.pdf\n\n220151005_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf\n\nAugust 24, 2017\nMr. Stanley Horton\nPresident & CEO\nBoardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 2-2015-1005\nDear Mr. Horton:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegation of violation against Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline\nPartners, LP, contained in the October 13, 2015 Notice of Probable Vioation and Proposed\nCompliance Order. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of\nmailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Richard Keyser, Sr. Vice President of Operations, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,\nBoardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046\nMs. Susan Olenchuk, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, Counsel for Texas Gas Transmission,\nLLC, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n___________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nTexas Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2015-1005\na subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline )\nPartners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom July 28 through July 29, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the Texas\nGas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas or Respondent), a wholly-owned, operating subsidiary of\nBoardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (Boardwalk), in Owensboro, Kentucky. Texas Gas operates\napproximately 6,025 miles of pipeline that transport natural gas from the Gulf Coast to the\nMidwest and Northeast.1 Texas Gas’ pipeline originates in Louisiana, East Texas, and Arkansas\nand runs north and east through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana,\nOhio and Illinois.2 Texas Gas also operates nine natural gas storage fields located in Indiana and\nKentucky.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 13, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Texas Gas had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 and proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violation or face potential enforcement action.\nTexas Gas responded to the Notice by letter dated November 11, 2015. The company contested\nthe allegation of violation and requested a hearing. Texas Gas subsequently submitted a letter\ndated April 12, 2016, withdrawing its request for a hearing and, therefore, has waived its right to\none. Finally, Texas Gas submitted a letter dated April 15, 2016 (Response) responding to the\n1 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, website, available at http://www.txgt.com/AboutUsTXGT.aspx (last accessed\nMay 1, 2017).\n2 Id.\n3 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2015-1005\nPage 2\nallegations in the Notice and requesting PHMSA withdraw the Notice and Compliance Order.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(g), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall have provisions to:\n(a) …\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual's qualifications is needed;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(g) by failing to identify in its\nwritten operator qualification (OQ) program the intervals at which evaluation of an individual’s\nqualifications is needed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Texas Gas failed to follow its\nwritten operator qualification program because it did not identify requalification intervals based\non the factors specified in the company’s OQ program. During the inspection, Texas Gas\ninformed the Southern Region (Region) that it uses Boardwalk’s Operator Qualification Plan,\nwhich specifically states that “each covered task includes a requalification interval based on task\ndifficulty, task importance, the potential for loss of knowledge or skill over time, and/or\nmanufacturer’s recommendations.”4 The Notice alleged Texas Gas did not demonstrate that the\nrequalification intervals recorded by the company were in fact “based on their estimate of task\ndifficulty, task importance, the potential for loss of knowledge or skill over time, and/or\nmanufacturer’s recommendations,” in accordance with the company’s written program.5 The\nRegion also alleged that many of the requalification intervals were set at three years based on the\nAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31Q Pipeline Personnel Qualification\nStandard, rather than by following the requirements of the company’s own written program.6\nIn its April 15, 2016 Response, Texas Gas contested the proposed violation, arguing it had not\nviolated § 192.805(g) or its own written operator qualification program. Respondent first argued\nthat the regulations do not require operators to create or maintain documentation justifying\nrequalification intervals associated with covered tasks; rather, Respondent argued that the\nregulations require that operators only “identify” the intervals.7 Respondent also argued that,\neven if there were such a documentation requirement, Texas Gas met that requirement because\nits written program details the process that its third-party operator qualification service provider,\n4 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), (October 13, 2015) (on file with\nPHMSA), at 2.\n5 Id.\n6 Id.\n7 Respondent’s Response to the Notice (Response), (April 15, 2016), at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2015-1005\nPage 3\nVeriforce, uses to evaluate covered tasks and to establish requalification intervals.8 Further,\nRespondent argued the ASME B31Q Standard describes the process by which requalification\nintervals are established for covered tasks, and that Texas Gas has the same or shorter intervals\nthan the ASME standard for the covered tasks in all but two instances.9\nAfter considering all of the evidence in the Violation Report and submitted with Respondent’s\nResponse, as well as the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.805(g) as alleged in the Notice. Section 195.805(g) requires that operators “[i]dentify\nthose covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the individual's qualifications is\nneeded.” The Boardwalk Internal Covered Task List, adopted by Texas Gas and submitted by\nthe company during the inspection, includes a list of covered tasks and corresponding\nqualification intervals.10 Further, PHMSA guidance advises operators that “[i]t is the\nresponsibility of the operator to determine and document the basis for” setting requalification\nintervals.11 The OQ program adopted by Texas Gas, described in more detail below, shows that\nthe company provided a basis for the requalification intervals listed on its submissions.\nThe record reflects Texas Gas set the requalification intervals in accordance with its written\noperator qualification program. PHMSA allows operators to use “off-the-shelf” operator\nqualification programs, such as the Veriforce OQ program adopted by Boardwalk and Texas\nGas, provided that the operator maintains an adequate level of oversight over the implementation\nand management of the program.12 Texas Gas implements the Boardwalk Operator Qualification\nPlan (Boardwalk OQ Plan), which explains that “Boardwalk has adopted the Common Covered\nTask List based on work by the Veriforce Common Task List Committee.”13 The Boardwalk\nOQ Plan states that “[e]ach covered task includes a requalification interval based on task\ndifficulty, task importance, the potential for loss of knowledge or skill over time, and/or\nmanufacturer’s recommendations.”14 The Boardwalk OQ Plan also explains that the Common\nCovered Task List and corresponding requalification intervals were created by Veriforce in 2003\n8 Id., at 3.\n9 Id.\n10 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (October 14, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), Exhibit A.\n11 PHMSA OQ FAQ 5.6 (available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/oq/faqs.htm#13).\n12 See PHMSA OQ FAQ 1.1 (“An operator choosing to use an 'off-the-shelf' OQ program (e.g., MEA, Northeast\nGas Association, and Consortium on Operator Qualification/NCCER) is still fully responsible to understand and\nmeet the provisions of the OQ Rule. For example, the operator must make sure that tasks performed in its unique\noperating environment by its employees or contractors are evaluated to determine whether they are covered or not.\nThe operator must also determine which of its employees and contractors perform the covered tasks, and ensure that\nthey are qualified to perform the tasks. Additionally, the operator must understand the basis on which reevaluation\nintervals have been specified and implement any performance monitoring activities needed to make sure qualified\npersons are performing covered tasks in an acceptable manner (according to the evaluation criteria established or\naccepted by the operator).”) (available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-resources/oq/faq#1).\n13 Response, Exhibit 3, at 45. See also, id., explaining that “[a]dditional tasks may be added to [the Common\nCovered Task List] as appropriate for qualification of Boardwalk personnel.”\n14 Id., at 36.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2015-1005\nPage 4\nduring an eight-month process in consultation with pipeline operators, contractors, industry trade\nassociates and other subject-matter experts.15 The Boardwalk OQ Plan includes further detail\nregarding the various factors Veriforce considered in deriving the Task List and corresponding\nrequalification intervals.16 The Plan lists the factors considered by its third-party OQ service\nprovider in setting the intervals for the tasks included on the Veriforce Common Task List.\nThe Boardwalk OQ Plan also includes several covered tasks that are specific to Boardwalk\noperating companies, which are not derived from the Veriforce Common Covered Task List.\nThese tasks are referred to as the “9000-Series Covered Tasks.”17 During the inspection, Texas\nGas indicated that the requalification intervals for the 9000-Series tasks were based on\nrecommendations in ASME B31Q, and the evidence submitted with the Response shows the\nrequalification interval for each 9000-Series task does match the interval established in ASME\nB31Q.18 It appears the requalification intervals for the 9000-Series tasks set by Boardwalk were\nbased on the intervals endorsed by the ASME B31Q Standard.\nA review of the Boardwalk OQ Plan shows Respondent identified covered tasks and intervals at\nwhich re-evaluations of individual qualifications is needed pursuant to § 192.805.19 For the tasks\nincluded on the Veriforce Common Task List, Respondent adopted the requalification intervals\nset by Veriforce. For those tasks not included in the third-party’s covered task list, Respondent\nfollowed industry guidance in setting the requalification intervals. As discussed above,\nRespondent’s OQ Plan also includes detail regarding the methodology used by its third-party\nvendor in calculating the requalification intervals. The methodology used by ASME in deriving\nrequalification intervals is detailed in the B31Q Standard. Further, the evidence submitted by\nRespondent shows the requalification intervals adopted by Boardwalk, both from Veriforce and\nASME B31Q, are consistent with PHMSA guidance.20 Respondent is encouraged, however, to\n15 Id., at 45. While the Violation Report notes that Veriforce does not have the records to show the work of the\ncommittee that established the requalification intervals, the Boardwalk OQ Program includes sufficient detail to\nshow there was some basis for the intervals chosen. Violation Report, at 6.\n16 Response, Exhibit 3, at 45-46.\n17 Id., at Exhibit 8.\n18 Violation Report, at 4.\n19 Response, at Exhibits 5, 6, and 8.\n20 See PHMSA OQ FAQ 5.6 (“[D]etermination and justification of the reevaluation interval should consider\nexisting consensus standards and industry practice (e.g., OSHA standards, non-mandatory consensus standards)”\n(available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-resources/oq/faq#13); PHMSA OQ FAQs 2.7 and 6.1,\ndirecting operators to use ASME B31Q as guidance (available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-\nresources/oq/faq#6, and https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-resources/oq/faq#14); PHMSA Operator\nQualification Enforcement Guidance, at 27, citing to ASME B31Q as reference material for complying with\n§ 192.805(g) (available at\nhttps://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/OQ Enforcement Guidance 12 7 2015.pdf).\nSee also, Response, at Exhibits 5, 6, and 8. But see, Response, Exhibit 6, at 3-4 (showing there are two covered\ntasks (Task 211, Perform plastic fusion inspection; Task 216, Joining of steel pipe – Compression couplings) for\nwhich Veriforce set a different interval than is recommended in ASME B31Q. There is no evidence that the\nrequalification intervals chosen by Veriforce for these two tasks were set without proper analysis)\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2015-1005\nPage 5\namend its OQ plan to include additional details concerning the methodology used by Veriforce\nand ASME to create the intervals within Respondent’s own plan.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent adequately identified the intervals at which evaluation of\noperator qualifications is needed in accordance with the § 192.805(g) as well as its own written\nprogram.\nBased upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the allegation of violation in the Notice be\nwithdrawn.\nAugust 24, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15587}