# TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

220151005_Final Order_08242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Final%20Order_08242017.pdf

220151005_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Final%20Order_08242017_text.pdf

220151005_NOPV PCO_10132015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_NOPV%20PCO_10132015.pdf

220151005_NOPV PCO_10132015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_NOPV%20PCO_10132015_text.pdf

220151005_Operator Post Hearing Response_04152016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220151005/220151005_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Response_04152016.pdf

220151005_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

220151005_Final Order_08242017_text.pdf

August 24, 2017
Mr. Stanley Horton
President & CEO
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77046
Re: CPF No. 2-2015-1005
Dear Mr. Horton:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegation of violation against Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners, LP, contained in the October 13, 2015 Notice of Probable Vioation and Proposed
Compliance Order. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of
mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. James Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Richard Keyser, Sr. Vice President of Operations, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046
Ms. Susan Olenchuk, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, Counsel for Texas Gas Transmission,
LLC, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
___________________________________
In the Matter of )
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2015-1005
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline )
Partners, LP, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
From July 28 through July 29, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the Texas
Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas or Respondent), a wholly-owned, operating subsidiary of
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (Boardwalk), in Owensboro, Kentucky. Texas Gas operates
approximately 6,025 miles of pipeline that transport natural gas from the Gulf Coast to the
Midwest and Northeast.1 Texas Gas’ pipeline originates in Louisiana, East Texas, and Arkansas
and runs north and east through Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana,
Ohio and Illinois.2 Texas Gas also operates nine natural gas storage fields located in Indiana and
Kentucky.3
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated October 13, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Texas Gas had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 and proposed ordering Respondent to
take certain measures to correct the alleged violation or face potential enforcement action.
Texas Gas responded to the Notice by letter dated November 11, 2015. The company contested
the allegation of violation and requested a hearing. Texas Gas subsequently submitted a letter
dated April 12, 2016, withdrawing its request for a hearing and, therefore, has waived its right to
one. Finally, Texas Gas submitted a letter dated April 15, 2016 (Response) responding to the
1 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, website, available at http://www.txgt.com/AboutUsTXGT.aspx (last accessed
May 1, 2017).
2 Id.
3 Id.



CPF No. 2-2015-1005
Page 2
allegations in the Notice and requesting PHMSA withdraw the Notice and Compliance Order.
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(g), which states:
§ 192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall have provisions to:
(a) …
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of
the individual's qualifications is needed;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(g) by failing to identify in its
written operator qualification (OQ) program the intervals at which evaluation of an individual’s
qualifications is needed. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Texas Gas failed to follow its
written operator qualification program because it did not identify requalification intervals based
on the factors specified in the company’s OQ program. During the inspection, Texas Gas
informed the Southern Region (Region) that it uses Boardwalk’s Operator Qualification Plan,
which specifically states that “each covered task includes a requalification interval based on task
difficulty, task importance, the potential for loss of knowledge or skill over time, and/or
manufacturer’s recommendations.”4 The Notice alleged Texas Gas did not demonstrate that the
requalification intervals recorded by the company were in fact “based on their estimate of task
difficulty, task importance, the potential for loss of knowledge or skill over time, and/or
manufacturer’s recommendations,” in accordance with the company’s written program.5 The
Region also alleged that many of the requalification intervals were set at three years based on the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31Q Pipeline Personnel Qualification
Standard, rather than by following the requirements of the company’s own written program.6
In its April 15, 2016 Response, Texas Gas contested the proposed violation, arguing it had not
violated § 192.805(g) or its own written operator qualification program. Respondent first argued
that the regulations do not require operators to create or maintain documentation justifying
requalification intervals associated with covered tasks; rather, Respondent argued that the
regulations require that operators only “identify” the intervals.7 Respondent also argued that,
even if there were such a documentation requirement, Texas Gas met that requirement because
its written program details the process that its third-party operator qualification service provider,
4 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), (October 13, 2015) (on file with
PHMSA), at 2.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Respondent’s Response to the Notice (Response), (April 15, 2016), at 2.



CPF No. 2-2015-1005
Page 3
Veriforce, uses to evaluate covered tasks and to establish requalification intervals.8 Further,
Respondent argued the ASME B31Q Standard describes the process by which requalification
intervals are established for covered tasks, and that Texas Gas has the same or shorter intervals
than the ASME standard for the covered tasks in all but two instances.9
After considering all of the evidence in the Violation Report and submitted with Respondent’s
Response, as well as the legal issues presented, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.805(g) as alleged in the Notice. Section 195.805(g) requires that operators “[i]dentify
those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the individual's qualifications is
needed.” The Boardwalk Internal Covered Task List, adopted by Texas Gas and submitted by
the company during the inspection, includes a list of covered tasks and corresponding
qualification intervals.10 Further, PHMSA guidance advises operators that “[i]t is the
responsibility of the operator to determine and document the basis for” setting requalification
intervals.11 The OQ program adopted by Texas Gas, described in more detail below, shows that
the company provided a basis for the requalification intervals listed on its submissions.
The record reflects Texas Gas set the requalification intervals in accordance with its written
operator qualification program. PHMSA allows operators to use “off-the-shelf” operator
qualification programs, such as the Veriforce OQ program adopted by Boardwalk and Texas
Gas, provided that the operator maintains an adequate level of oversight over the implementation
and management of the program.12 Texas Gas implements the Boardwalk Operator Qualification
Plan (Boardwalk OQ Plan), which explains that “Boardwalk has adopted the Common Covered
Task List based on work by the Veriforce Common Task List Committee.”13 The Boardwalk
OQ Plan states that “[e]ach covered task includes a requalification interval based on task
difficulty, task importance, the potential for loss of knowledge or skill over time, and/or
manufacturer’s recommendations.”14 The Boardwalk OQ Plan also explains that the Common
Covered Task List and corresponding requalification intervals were created by Veriforce in 2003
8 Id., at 3.
9 Id.
10 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (October 14, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), Exhibit A.
11 PHMSA OQ FAQ 5.6 (available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/oq/faqs.htm#13).
12 See PHMSA OQ FAQ 1.1 (“An operator choosing to use an 'off-the-shelf' OQ program (e.g., MEA, Northeast
Gas Association, and Consortium on Operator Qualification/NCCER) is still fully responsible to understand and
meet the provisions of the OQ Rule. For example, the operator must make sure that tasks performed in its unique
operating environment by its employees or contractors are evaluated to determine whether they are covered or not.
The operator must also determine which of its employees and contractors perform the covered tasks, and ensure that
they are qualified to perform the tasks. Additionally, the operator must understand the basis on which reevaluation
intervals have been specified and implement any performance monitoring activities needed to make sure qualified
persons are performing covered tasks in an acceptable manner (according to the evaluation criteria established or
accepted by the operator).”) (available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-resources/oq/faq#1).
13 Response, Exhibit 3, at 45. See also, id., explaining that “[a]dditional tasks may be added to [the Common
Covered Task List] as appropriate for qualification of Boardwalk personnel.”
14 Id., at 36.



CPF No. 2-2015-1005
Page 4
during an eight-month process in consultation with pipeline operators, contractors, industry trade
associates and other subject-matter experts.15 The Boardwalk OQ Plan includes further detail
regarding the various factors Veriforce considered in deriving the Task List and corresponding
requalification intervals.16 The Plan lists the factors considered by its third-party OQ service
provider in setting the intervals for the tasks included on the Veriforce Common Task List.
The Boardwalk OQ Plan also includes several covered tasks that are specific to Boardwalk
operating companies, which are not derived from the Veriforce Common Covered Task List.
These tasks are referred to as the “9000-Series Covered Tasks.”17 During the inspection, Texas
Gas indicated that the requalification intervals for the 9000-Series tasks were based on
recommendations in ASME B31Q, and the evidence submitted with the Response shows the
requalification interval for each 9000-Series task does match the interval established in ASME
B31Q.18 It appears the requalification intervals for the 9000-Series tasks set by Boardwalk were
based on the intervals endorsed by the ASME B31Q Standard.
A review of the Boardwalk OQ Plan shows Respondent identified covered tasks and intervals at
which re-evaluations of individual qualifications is needed pursuant to § 192.805.19 For the tasks
included on the Veriforce Common Task List, Respondent adopted the requalification intervals
set by Veriforce. For those tasks not included in the third-party’s covered task list, Respondent
followed industry guidance in setting the requalification intervals. As discussed above,
Respondent’s OQ Plan also includes detail regarding the methodology used by its third-party
vendor in calculating the requalification intervals. The methodology used by ASME in deriving
requalification intervals is detailed in the B31Q Standard. Further, the evidence submitted by
Respondent shows the requalification intervals adopted by Boardwalk, both from Veriforce and
ASME B31Q, are consistent with PHMSA guidance.20 Respondent is encouraged, however, to
15 Id., at 45. While the Violation Report notes that Veriforce does not have the records to show the work of the
committee that established the requalification intervals, the Boardwalk OQ Program includes sufficient detail to
show there was some basis for the intervals chosen. Violation Report, at 6.
16 Response, Exhibit 3, at 45-46.
17 Id., at Exhibit 8.
18 Violation Report, at 4.
19 Response, at Exhibits 5, 6, and 8.
20 See PHMSA OQ FAQ 5.6 (“[D]etermination and justification of the reevaluation interval should consider
existing consensus standards and industry practice (e.g., OSHA standards, non-mandatory consensus standards)”
(available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-resources/oq/faq#13); PHMSA OQ FAQs 2.7 and 6.1,
directing operators to use ASME B31Q as guidance (available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-
resources/oq/faq#6, and https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/technical-resources/oq/faq#14); PHMSA Operator
Qualification Enforcement Guidance, at 27, citing to ASME B31Q as reference material for complying with
§ 192.805(g) (available at
https://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/OQ Enforcement Guidance 12 7 2015.pdf).
See also, Response, at Exhibits 5, 6, and 8. But see, Response, Exhibit 6, at 3-4 (showing there are two covered
tasks (Task 211, Perform plastic fusion inspection; Task 216, Joining of steel pipe – Compression couplings) for
which Veriforce set a different interval than is recommended in ASME B31Q. There is no evidence that the
requalification intervals chosen by Veriforce for these two tasks were set without proper analysis)



CPF No. 2-2015-1005
Page 5
amend its OQ plan to include additional details concerning the methodology used by Veriforce
and ASME to create the intervals within Respondent’s own plan.
Accordingly, I find Respondent adequately identified the intervals at which evaluation of
operator qualifications is needed in accordance with the § 192.805(g) as well as its own written
program.
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the allegation of violation in the Notice be
withdrawn.
August 24, 2017
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 15587