# TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 32022019NOPV
- **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:** 2022-01-21
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481(a), 192.481(b), 192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.619(a)(1), 192.619(a)(1)(ii), 192.705(c), 192.706, 192.706(a), 192.907(a), 192.947(d).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022019nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022019nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022019nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32022019NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.481(a),  192.481(b),  192.603(b),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.619(a)(1),  192.619(a)(1)(ii),  192.705(c),  192.706,  192.706(a),  192.907(a),  192.947(d). The case was opened on 2022-01-21 and is reported as closed as of 2023-04-05. Proposed civil penalty: $474,300. Assessed civil penalty: $237,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

32022019NOPV_Closure Letter_04052023_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Closure%20Letter_04052023_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Closure Letter_04052023_(20-179248)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Closure%20Letter_04052023_(20-179248)_text.pdf

32022019NOPV_Closure Letter_10112022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Closure%20Letter_10112022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Closure Letter_10112022_(20-179248)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Closure%20Letter_10112022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

32022019NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_07012022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07012022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_07012022_(20-179248)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07012022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

32022019NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Statement of Issues (Part 1)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Op%20Resp%20to%20Notice%20and%20Req%20for%20Hrng%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%201)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Statement of Issues (Part 2)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Op%20Resp%20to%20Notice%20and%20Req%20for%20Hrng%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%202)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Statement of Issues (Part 3)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Op%20Resp%20to%20Notice%20and%20Req%20for%20Hrng%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%203)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of Request for Hearing_07012022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Request%20for%20Hearing_07012022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_PCP_PCO_01212022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_PCP_PCO_01212022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_PCP_PCO_01212022_(20-179248)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_PCP_PCO_01212022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

32022019NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_05192022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_05192022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_05192022_(20-179248)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_05192022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

32022019NOPV_Region Requests Compliance Reopen Case_12212022_(20-179248).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Region%20Requests%20Compliance%20Reopen%20Case_12212022_(20-179248).pdf

32022019NOPV_Region Requests Compliance Reopen Case_12212022_(20-179248)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022019NOPV/32022019NOPV_Region%20Requests%20Compliance%20Reopen%20Case_12212022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

32022019NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Statement of Issues (Part 1)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf

610 West 2nd Street
P.O. Box 20008
Owensboro, KY 42304-0008
270/926-8686
By Email Only
April 13, 2022
Mr. Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region
Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
901 Locust Street, Suite 462
Kansas City, MO 64106
Re: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
Written Response to Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order, Request for Hearing and Request for Settlement
Meeting
Dear Mr. Ochs,
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a) & (b) and § 190.211, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas
Gas) respectfully submits a Written Response to Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty
and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) issued on January 21, 2022. On February 2, 2022, PHMSA
approved an extension until April 21, 2022 to respond to the Notice. Therefore, this response is timely.
Texas Gas also submits a Request for Hearing, Preliminary Statement of Issues and Request
for Settlement Meeting. Texas Gas requests a hearing on Item 5, Item 6, Item 8, Item 11, and Item 13.
Texas Gas also requests a settlement meeting to permit the parties to discuss resolution of the
allegations in the Notice. Texas Gas requests that the presiding official delay scheduling a hearing to
allow the parties sufficient time to convene a meeting to resolve issues.
Texas Gas requests that it continue to be provided with all documents or communications from
OPS pertaining to the case or the case file, which includes “all agency records pertinent to the matters
of fact and law asserted,”1 including, but not limited to inspector notes or other materials the region
intends to rely on to support the NOPV, and Region Director’s “written evaluation of response material
submitted by the respondent and recommendation for final action, if one is prepared.” 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.209(b)(7). Please consider this a standing request. Texas Gas reserves the right to amend or
supplement its Response or the preliminary list of issues in the event that PHMSA provides any
additional materials for our review.
1 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1)(C).



Mr. Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region
Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
April 13, 2022
Page 2
Texas Gas looks forward to working with you and your staff to resolve the issues raised in the
Notice.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at tony.rizk@bwpipelines.com or Ms. Tina Baker at tina.baker@bwpipelines.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony G. Rizk, P. E.
Vice President, Technical Services
Attachments
CC: Joseph Hainline, Esq., Sr. Attorney Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA (via email
Joseph.Hainline@DOT.gov)

32022019NOPV_Closure Letter_10112022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: stan.horton@bwpipelines.com, and
tina.baker@bwpipelines.com
October 11, 2022
Stanley C. Horton
CEO Boardwalk Pipelines
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77066
Re: CPF 3-2022-019-NOPV
Dear Mr. Horton:
On January 21, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Texas Gas Transmission, LLC a Consent Agreement and Consent Order in the above-
referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on
our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty,
it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Tina Baker (tina.baker@bwpipelines.com)

32022019NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Statement of Issues (Part 3)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues
of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
and Request for Settlement Meeting
Pursuant to § 190.208(a)(4) and § 190.211, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas),
submits a Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues regarding the Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) issued on
January 21, 2022 following an inspection conducted by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). On
February 2, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
approved by email an extension until April 21, 2022 to respond to the Notice. Therefore, this
Response is timely.
The Notice alleges 13 probable violations. Texas Gas does not contest the allegations and
proposed remedies contained in Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 7, Item 9, Item 10 and Item 12.
Texas Gas is committed to public safety and operating its pipeline facilities in accordance
with PHMSA’s regulations. Texas Gas takes PHMSA’s allegations of violation seriously,
however, certain allegations in the Notice are legally and factually unsupported and must be
withdrawn. Texas Gas contests Item 5, Item 6, Item 8, Item 11, and Item 13. Texas Gas requests
a hearing on these items. Concurrently with this request, Texas Gas also has filed a written
response with respect to the contested items in the Notice.
As permitted under 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1), Texas Gas requests a settlement meeting to
discuss resolution of the alleged violations. Texas Gas requests that the presiding official delay
scheduling a hearing to allow the parties sufficient time to convene a meeting to resolve issues
through a settlement.
Request for Hearing
Texas Gas requests that PHMSA convene an in-person hearing regarding Item 5, Item 6,
Item 8, Item 11, and Item 13.



Texas Gas will be represented by legal counsel at the hearing and intends to raise the issues
identified below in its Preliminary Statement of Issues.
Preliminary Statement of Issues
Texas Gas intends to raise the issues set forth below in a hearing in this case. Texas Gas
reserves the right to revise these issues at or before the hearing based on any additional information
that may be provided in this proceeding.
Item 5 § 192.605(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
Whether the facts stated in the Notice regarding the status of the gas detector units are
incorrect.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Texas Gas failed to comply with
the Operations and Maintenance Manual.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving the existence of a violation of
§ 192.605(a) because the allegation is unsupported by the facts and evidence in the case
file.
Whether the allegation is unsupported by the Pipeline Safety Laws and is inconsistent with
the relevant Part 192 regulations, PHMSA case law and guidance.
Whether the proposed compliance order is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the
case file, the Pipeline Safety Laws, and relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
Item 6 § 192.605(b)(8) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Texas Gas failed to document
periodic reviews of the effectiveness and adequacy of procedures under § 192.605(b)(8).
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving the existence of a violation of
§ 192.605(b)(8) because the allegation is unsupported by the facts and the evidence in the
case file.
Whether the allegation is unsupported by the Pipeline Safety Laws and is inconsistent with
the relevant Part 192 regulations, PHMSA case law and guidance.
Whether the proposed compliance order is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the
case file, the Pipeline Safety Laws and relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
April 13, 2022
Page 2



Item 8 § 192.619(a)(1) Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.
Whether OPS violated § 190.207(b)(i) by failing to include a statement of evidence upon
which the allegations are based.
Whether the Notice fails to explain its conclusions in a manner that enables Texas Gas to
prepare an adequate response.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that an MAOP that is based on
§ 195.555(d)(2) becomes invalid based solely on a change in class location.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Texas Gas was required to confirm
or verify MAOP under § 192.611 after a class location change.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving a violation § 192.619(a)(1) because
the allegation is unsupported by the facts and the evidence in the case file.
Whether the allegation is unsupported by the Pipeline Safety Laws and is inconsistent with
the relevant Part 192 regulations, PHMSA case law and guidance.
Whether the proposed compliance order is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the
case file, the Pipeline Safety Laws and relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
Whether the proposed civil penalty is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the case
file, the Pipeline Safety Laws and relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
Item 11 § 192.706(a) Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the leak detection devices used by
Texas Gas to perform leakage surveys were improper.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Texas Gas performed leakage
surveys in the locations identified in the Notice using allegedly improper leak detection
equipment.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving a violation of § 192.706(a) because the
alleged violation is unsupported by the facts or the evidence in the case file.
Whether the allegation is unsupported by the Pipeline Safety Laws and is inconsistent with
the relevant Part 192 regulations, PHMSA case law and guidance.
Whether the proposed compliance order is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the
case file, the Pipeline Safety Laws and relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
April 13, 2022
Page 3



Whether the proposed civil penalty is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the case
file, the Pipeline Safety Laws and relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
Item 13: § 192.947(d) What records must an operator keep?
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the documentation supporting
Texas Gas’s preventative and mitigative measures did not justify the measures selected.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that Texas Gas violated
§ 192.947(d) ) because the alleged violation is unsupported by the facts or the evidence in
the case file.
Whether the allegation is unsupported by the Pipeline Safety Laws and is inconsistent with
the relevant Part 192 regulations, PHMSA case law and guidance.
Whether OPS failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the proposed civil penalty is
inappropriate and unsupported by the facts, the case law, the Pipeline Safety Laws, and
relevant Part 190 and Part 192 regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony G. Rizk, P. E.
Vice President, Technical Services
April 13, 2022
Page 4

32022019NOPV_Closure Letter_04052023_(20-179248)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: stan.horton@bwpipelines.com;
tina.baker@bwpipelines.com
April 5, 2023
Stanley C. Horton
President/CEO Boardwalk Pipelines
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77066
Re: CPF 3-2022-019-NOPV
Dear Mr. Horton:
On January 21, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Texas Gas Transmission, LLC a Consent Agreement and Order in the above-referenced
case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review
of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Service Boardwalk Pipelines
(tina.baker@bwpipelines.com)

32022019NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_05192022_(20-179248)_text.pdf

May 19, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sam@vnf.com and gregory.ochs@dot.gov
Ms. Susan Olenchuk
Counsel for Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
VanNess Feldman, LLP
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Mr. Gregory Ochs
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
901 Locust Street, Suite 480
Kansas City, MO 64106
Re: Notice of Hearing, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
Dear Ms. Olenchuk and Mr. Ochs:
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The
hearing will take place on July 14, 2022, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Central Time.
The hearing will be held via videoconference. I will provide the videoconference information
prior to the hearing. At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by July 4, 2022), both
parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the
hearing and the name and email address of each attendee. This information should be provided
electronically. Materials not submitted by this date may be excluded.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kristin Baldwin
Presiding Official
cc: Mr. Joseph Hainline, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,
joseph.hainline@dot.gov
Mr. Ryan McClure, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,
ryan.mcclure@dot.gov



CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
Page 2
Mr. Tony Rizk, Vice President, Technical Services, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
tony.rizk@bwpipelines.com
Mr. Michael McMahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC, mike.mcmahon@bwpipelines.com
Mr. Patrick Byrd, Assistant General Counsel, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
patrick.byrd@bwpipelines.com
Mr. Darral Ward, Manager, Pipeline Safety, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
darral.ward@bwpipelines.com
Mr. Jeff Sanderson, Senior Vice President, Operations, Engineering, and Construction,
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, jeff.sanderson@bwpipelines.com
Ms. Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,
tina.baker@bwpipelines.com

32022019NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Statement of Issues (Part 2)_04132022_(20-179248).pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
To Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty,
and Proposed Compliance Order
Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas)1 submits its Response to the Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) issued on January 21,
2022, following an inspection performed by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) in 2020 and 2021.
On February 2, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
approved by email an extension of time until April 21, 2022, to respond to the Notice. This
response is timely.
Texas Gas is committed to public safety and operating its pipeline facilities in accordance
with the PHMSA’s regulations. Texas Gas takes PHMSA’s allegations of violation seriously,
however, certain allegations in the Notice are legally and factually unsupported and must be
withdrawn. As discussed below, Texas Gas contests Item 5, Item 6, Item 8, Item 11, and Item 13.
Concurrently with this written response, Texas Gas is submitting a Request for a Hearing,
a Preliminary Statement of Issues and Request for Settlement Meeting pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.208(a)(4) and § 190.211 and as permitted under 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1). Texas Gas is
requesting the settlement meeting to discuss resolving these allegations and also is requesting that
the presiding official delay scheduling a hearing to allow the parties sufficient time to convene a
meeting to resolve issues through a settlement.
Texas Gas does not contest Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 7, Item 9, Item 10 and
Item 12.
I. Executive Summary
Item 5 § 192.605(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
Texas Gas contests the allegation that it failed to follow its procedure for inspecting gas detection
units at the Dillsboro Compressor Station because the alleged facts regarding the status of the gas
1 Texas Gas is a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk).



Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
April 13, 2022
detector units are incorrect. When compressor engines #1, #2, #3, #9, and #10 were dismantled
for repairs and upgrades in 2017, the gas detector units for these engines were permanently
removed from service. Contrary to statements in the Notice, these gas detector units were not
“returned to service” and were not “re-inspected” in 2018. When the repaired and upgraded
compressor engines were restored to service in late 2017 and early 2018, Texas Gas installed new
gas detector units for each engine. Texas Gas did not miss the summer 2017 inspection cycle for
these units and did not fail to comply with its procedure. The alleged violation and proposed civil
penalty must be withdrawn.
Item 6 § 192.605(b)(8) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.
Texas Gas contests Item 6 because the information relied on by OPS does not support the
allegation. The Notice relies on Texas Gas’s Form 1000-20 to support the allegation that Texas
Gas did not “document any the assessment of work performed as part of the operations and
maintenance procedures.” Form 1000-20 is not the form Texas Gas uses to document compliance
with § 192.605(a)(8). Texas Gas uses Form 1000-10 to document changes made to procedures
under § 192.605(a)(8). The proposed compliance order requiring Texas Gas to draft procedures
must be withdrawn because the Notice does not allege that Texas Gas lacks a procedure or that
Texas Gas’s existing procedure is inadequate. OPS has not met its burden of proving that the
proposed remedy is appropriate.
Item 8 § 192.619(a)(1) Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines.
Texas Gas contests Item 8 because the Notice fails to explain how Texas Gas allegedly violates
§ 192.619(a)(1)(ii). The Notice fails to comply with § 190.207(b)(1) which requires that a notice
of probable violation include statement of evidence upon which the allegations are based. If not
withdrawn for failing to comply with § 190.207(b)(1), then Item 8 must be withdrawn because the
Notice incorrectly suggests that a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) established
under § 192.555(d)(2) is automatically nullified by a class location change. This suggestion is not
supported by any PHMSA decision, interpretation or guidance and is contrary to § 192.611. The
assertion that Texas Gas is required to confirm or revise MAOP under § 192.611 is incorrect and
inconsistent with the plain language of that regulation. The proposed compliance order and
proposed civil penalty also must be withdrawn.
Item 11 § 192.706(a) Transmission lines: Leakage surveys. Texas Gas contests this
alleged violation because OPS has not satisfied its burden of proving that Texas Gas conducted
leakage surveys using improper leak detection equipment on transmission pipelines in Class 3
locations. First, OPS has not demonstrated that the leak detection equipment listed in the Notice
is improper or inappropriate for detecting leaks in a pipeline right of way. The Notice does not
identify any undetected leak or leak incident and OPS provides no technical analysis explaining
why the leak detectors used by Texas Gas are not designed for detecting leaks that come from pipe
located below ground. OPS also does not explain the concentration levels a leak detector must be
capable of measuring in a pipeline right of way or why the leak detectors identified in the Notice
cannot detect gas at those concentrations. Second, information contained in the Violation Report
does not demonstrate that the leakage surveys listed in the Violation Report were performed using
the equipment alleged to be improper or that these leakage surveys were performed in Class 3
2



Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
April 13, 2022
locations. The allegation, proposed compliance order and proposed civil penalty must be
withdrawn.
Item 13: § 192.947(d) What records must an operator keep? Texas Gas contests the
alleged violation in Item 13. Each preventative and mitigative (P&M) measure selected and
implemented by Texas Gas in the ten high consequence areas (HCA) identified in the Notice is
supported by a Risk Analysis, a completed Preventative and Mitigative Measures form (P&M
Form), the Boardwalk Integrity Management Plan, and ASME/ANSI B31.8S.2 Each measure is
plainly tailored to mitigate risks associated with the threats identified in each HCA. The Notice
does not identify either a pipeline or public risk resulting from the alleged lack of documentation
or any incremental safety benefit created by having any additional documentation. The proposed
civil penalty also must be withdrawn as excessive, unwarranted, and disproportionate to the alleged
violation.
II. Response of Texas Gas
A. PHMSA Bears the Burden of Proving the Allegations in the Notice.
PHMSA has the burden of proving that Texas Gas has violated the pipeline safety
regulations.3 PHMSA has the “‘burden of production,’ i.e., . . . the obligation to come forward
with the evidence at different points in the proceeding,” and the “‘burden of persuasion,’ i.e., which
party loses if the evidence is closely balanced.”4 PHMSA “bears the burden of proof as to all
2 ASME/ANSI B31.8S-2004, “Supplement to B31.8 on Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines,” incorporated
by reference into Part 192. 49 C.F.R. § 192.7.
3 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1)(F) (2018), as amended by the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing
Safety Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. R, title I, § 108(a)(2), 134 Stat. 2221, 2223 (Dec. 27, 2020). See 49
C.F.R. § 190.213(a)(1) (2021). In re Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 1-2018-1001, 2019 WL
7943664, **4, 5 (Nov. 14, 2019) (withdrawing alleged violation of § 192.706 because “OPS did not meet its burden
of proving a violation of the leak detection regulation”); In re ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2017-
5027, 2019 WL 3734516, **4, 5 (Apr. 3, 2019) (withdrawing allegation because PHMSA’s evidence did not establish
a violation); In re Inland Corp., Final Order, CPF No. 1-2017-5003, 2018 WL 2229407, *3 (Mar. 7, 2018)
(withdrawing alleged violation where testimony was contradictory and factual evidence provided by respondent did
not support OPS’s claim); In re Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2013-1001, 2015 WL 6758819,
*3 (Aug. 10, 2015) (withdrawing alleged violation because PHMSA did not produce “any evidence to support its
position” and thereby did not meet its burden of proof); In re ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2013-
5007, 2015 WL 780721, *12 (Jan. 23,add 2015) (finding that PHMSA failed to meet burden of proving that certain
measures were required under the regulations); In re So. Star Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2008-
1005, 2011 WL 7006614, *4 (Oct. 21, 2011) (finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the allegation); In re Golden
Pass Pipeline, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2008-1017, 2011 WL 1919517, *5 (Mar. 22, 2011) (finding that PHMSA
did not meet its burden of proving that its interpretation of regulatory language was correct).
4 Schaeffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56 (2005) (quoting Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, Dep’t of Labor v.
Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 272 (1994)); see also In re Butte Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-
5008, 2009 WL 3190794, *1 (Aug. 17, 2009) (“PHMSA carries the burden of proving the allegations set forth in the
Notice, meaning that a violation may be found only if the evidence supporting the allegation outweighs the evidence
and reasoning presented by Respondent in its defense.”) (internal citation omitted).
3



Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
April 13, 2022
elements of the proposed violation.”5 To meet its burden of production, PHMSA must present
sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation of violation. Where PHMSA does not produce such
evidence, the allegation of violation must be withdrawn.6 If the cited regulatory provision does
not relate to the alleged problem, the alleged violation must be withdrawn.7
To meet its burden of persuasion, PHMSA “must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the facts necessary to sustain a probable violation actually occurred.”8 This burden
is carried “only if the evidence supporting the allegation outweighs the evidence and reasoning
presented by Respondent in its defense.”9 A respondent will prevail under this standard not by
conclusively proving compliance, but where its rebuttal evidence is more persuasive than the
evidence provided by PHMSA.10 If “the evidence is closely balanced,” PHMSA has not met its
burden of persuasion and the allegation of violation must be withdrawn.11
B. Texas Gas Did Not Fail to Comply With Section 9040 of Its O&M Manual.
Item 5 of the Notice asserts that Texas Gas did not follow Section 9040 of its operation and
maintenance (O&M) procedures for inspecting the gas detectors at the Dillsboro Compressor
Station in alleged violation of § 192.605(a) which requires that an operator “prepare and follow
for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response.”12 Section 9040 of Texas Gas’s O&M Manual describes
5 In re ANR Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2011-1011, 2012 WL 7177134, *3 (Dec. 31, 2012) (finding that
evidence in violation report was insufficient); see also In re CITGO Pipeline Co., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF
No. 4-2007-5010, 2011 WL 7517716, *5 (Dec. 29, 2011) (finding lack of evidence demonstrating all elements of the
alleged violation).
6 See, e.g., Tennessee Gas Pipeline, 2019 WL 7943664 at *5 (withdrawing alleged violation because OPS did not
meet its burden of proving a violation); ExxonMobil, 2019 WL 3734516 at **4, 5 (ordering withdrawal of allegations
where OPS failed to prove that Respondent engaged in conduct that would constitute a violation); In re Plains Pipeline,
L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2009-5009, 2011 WL 1919520, **4, 5 (Mar. 15, 2011) (ordering withdrawal of allegation
when limited evidence in the record was not conclusive); In re EQT Corp., Final Order, CPF No. 1-2006-1006, 2010
WL 2228558, **6, 7 (May 13, 2010) (finding that OPS did not present evidence or analysis proving that Respondent’s
actions was inadequate under the regulation); In re Bridger Pipeline Co., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-
2007-5003, 2009 WL 2336991, **5, 6 (June 16, 2009) (finding evidence introduced by PHMSA insufficient to
establish a violation).
7 In re Rocky Mountain Pipeline Sys., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2004-5001, 2006 WL 4488857, **6, 8 (Dec. 11, 2006)
(withdrawing alleged violations where the cited regulations did not relate to alleged violation).
8 In re Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-2005-5023, 2009 WL
5538655, *3 (Dec. 16, 2009) (citing In re Butte Pipeline, 2009 WL 3190794 at *1, n.3; Schaeffer, 546 U.S. at 56-58).
9 In re Butte Pipeline, 2009 WL 3190794 at *1 (internal citation omitted).
10 See ANR Pipeline, 2012 WL 7177134 at *3. In ANR Pipeline, PHMSA found that ANR’s “plausible” explanation
regarding the discovery of a reportable condition on its pipeline was sufficient to warrant withdrawal of the allegation
of violation because the “Violation Report contain[ed] no evidence which would rebut ANR’s argument.” Id. See
also In re City of Richmond, VA, Final Order, CPF No. 1-2004-0006, 2006 WL 3825337, *4 (Jan. 12, 2006) (stating
that the Respondent does not have the burden of proving compliance, rather OPS has the burden of proving the
violation).
11 Alyeska Pipeline, 2009 WL 5538655 at *3 (quoting Schaeffer, 546 U.S. at 56). Cf. In re Buckeye Partners, LP,
Final Order, CPF No. 1-2009-5002, 2012 WL 3144486, *7 (May 30, 2012) (where neither party “present[s] sufficient
proof to prove its position,” the violation must be withdrawn because PHMSA bears the burden).
12 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a); Notice at 4; Pipeline Safety Violation Report, CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV at 17 (2022)
(Violation Report).
4



Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
April 13, 2022
the procedure for implementing § 192.736 which requires that “[e]ach gas detection and alarm
system” required in a compressor station building “be maintained to function properly. The
maintenance must include performance tests.”13 Consistent with this regulation, Section 9040
requires that a “functional test” of each compressor station gas detection system be performed
annually, not to exceed 15 months.14
The Notice alleges the following:
Texas Gas did not have any 2017 inspection records for the gas detectors associated
with engines 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 at its Dillsboro compressor station. The gas detectors
for these engines were not re-inspected until 2018. On April 21, 2020, Texas Gas
stated in response to the finding of lack of inspection: “Engines not available to
perform annual Gas Detection inspections due to maintenance in 2017.” Although
the engines were out of service for part of 2017, the annual maintenance must still
be performed because the units were returned to service.
15
Texas Gas contests this allegation because the alleged facts regarding the status of these
gas detector units are incorrect. When compressor engines #1, #2, #3, #9, and #10 were repaired
and upgraded in 2017, the gas detectors for these engines were permanently removed from service.
They were not “returned to service” and they were not “re-inspected” in 2018. When the
rehabilitated compressor engines were restored to service in late 2017 and early 2018, Texas Gas
installed and commissioned new gas detector units. Texas Gas was not required to inspect the gas
detector units permanently removed from service.
Texas Gas’s Dillsboro Compressor Station has 10 compressor engines. Each compressor
engine has at least three gas detection units. During 2017, Texas Gas temporarily removed
compressor engines #1, #2, #3, #9, and #10 from service for repairs and upgrades. This
rehabilitation project required that each compressor engine be disconnected from gas supply and
disassembled. On compressor engine #1, Texas Gas performed an engine foundation regrout,
which entailed removing and repouring the engine’s concrete foundation.
The compressor engine rehabilitation project required that Texas Gas detach the gas
detector units from the disassembled engines. These units were permanently removed because
Texas Gas planned to install new gas detector units on the rehabilitated compressor engines.
Permanently removing these units from service in 2017 terminated the regulatory obligation to
inspect them under § 192.736(c) and Section 9040 of Texas Gas’s O&M Manual.
Texas Gas completed the repairs and upgrades on compressor engines #2, #3, #9, and #10
in late 2017. Before returning the rehabilitated engines to service, Texas Gas installed new gas
detection units on each engine. A new gas detection unit also was installed on compressor engine
13 Violation Report, Exhibit A at 310-311. For ease of reference, Section 9040 of Boardwalk’s O&M Manual is
attached hereto as Attachment 1. See also 49 C.F.R. § 192.736.
14 Attachment 1 at 2.
15 Notice at 4 (emphasis added).
5



Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022-019-NOPV
April 13, 2022
#1 when its rehabilitation and regrout was completed in 2018. These are the units that were
inspected in 2018.
The records documenting the commissioning and initial inspection of all of these new gas
detection units, dated October and November 2017, and January 2018 are attached to this Response
as Attachment 2.16
Throughout the 2017 compressor engine rehabilitation project, the gas detection and alarm
system at the Dillsboro Compressor Station continued to function because compressor engines #4,
#5, #6, #7, and #8 and their gas detector units remained in service. Records confirm that Texas
Gas inspected the gas detection units associated with these compressor engines i
n August 2017 and that the gas detection and alarm systems were functional.17
Texas Gas did not fail to comply with Section 9040 of its O&M Manual and did not violate
§ 192.605(a). The Notice fails to set forth “the facts necessary to sustain a probable violation
actually occurred.”18 This allegation and the proposed civil penalty must be withdrawn.
C. OPS Fails to Prove That Texas Gas Failed to Document Procedure Reviews
Required Under § 192.605(b)(8).
Section 192.605(b)(8) requires an operator to have and follow a procedural manual for
maintenance and normal operations, including procedures for “[p]eriodically reviewing the work
done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used
in normal operation and maintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are
found.”19 Item 6 of the Notice asserts that “Texas Gas failed to determine the effectiveness and
adequacy of its procedures based on a review of work performed during normal operations by its
personnel.”20
The Notice states that, during the inspection, OPS “requested to review documentation
relating to review of work performed for various procedures as required by Texas Gas procedure
O&M Section 1010 ‘General Procedures.’”21 The Notice states that the material provided by
Texas Gas, Form 1000-20: Compliance Manual Effectiveness Review, from the annual review for
2017, 2018, and 2019, “failed to document any assessment of work performed as part of the
operations and maintenance procedures.”22 The Notice asserts that Texas Gas was “unable to
16 Attachment 2 at 1, 2, 5, 6, & 7.
17 Violation Report, Exhibit E. For ease of reference, an excerpt of Exhibit E containing the 2017 inspection records
is attached hereto as Attachment 3.
18 See, e.g., Alyeska Pipeline, 2009 WL 5538655 at *3 (quoting Schaeffer, 546 U.S. at 56-58); ExxonMobil, 2019 WL
3734516 at **4, 5 (ordering withdrawal of allegations where OPS failed to prove that Respondent engaged in conduct
that would constitute a violation); Inland Corp., 2018 WL 2229407 at *3 (withdrawing alleged violation where
testimony was contradictory and factual evidence provided by respondent did not support OPS’s claim); So. Star Cent.
Gas Pipeline, 2011 WL 7006614 at *4 (finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the allegation).
19 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(8).
20 Notice at 4.
21 Id. at 4-5.
22 Id. at 5.
6



Response of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
CPF No. 3-2022
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 136768