{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024048NOPV","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":"2024-05-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.907(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024048nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024048nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024048nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024048NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.907(a). The case was opened on 2024-05-21 and is reported as closed as of 2025-04-28. Proposed civil penalty: $50,200. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024048NOPV_Final Order_04282025_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Final%20Order_04282025_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_Final Order_04282025_(23-264228)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Final%20Order_04282025_(23-264228)_text.pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_Operator Post-Hearing Brief_12192024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Brief_12192024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_11122024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submission_11122024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_Operator Request for Hearing and Statement of Issues and Request for Informal Meeting (Part 3)_06182024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20(Part%203)_06182024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Statement of Issues and Request for Informal Meeting (Part 1)_06182024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20(Part%201)_06182024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Statement of Issues and Request for Informal Meeting (Part 2)_06182024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20(Part%202)_06182024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_PCP_05212024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_PCP_05212024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_PCP_05212024_(23-264228)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_PCP_05212024_(23-264228)_text.pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_07252024_(23-264228).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_07252024_(23-264228).pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_07252024_(23-264228)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024048NOPV/32024048NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_07252024_(23-264228)_text.pdf\n\n32024048NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_07252024_(23-264228)_text.pdf\n\nJuly 25, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tony.rizk@bwpipelines.com and gregory.ochs@dot.gov\nMr. Tony G. Rizk, P.E.\nVice President, Technical Services, Boardwalk Pipelines\nTexas Gas Transmission, LLC\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nMr. Gregory Ochs\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n901 Locust Street, Suite 480\nKansas City, MO 64106-2641\nRe: Notice of Hearing, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC\nCPF No. 3-2024-048-NOPV\nDear Mr. Rizk and Mr. Ochs:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration in the above-referenced case. The hearing will take place on November 19, 2024,\nbeginning at 8:30 a.m. Central Time.\nThe hearing will be held at the PHMSA Central Region office, 901 Locust Street, Suite 480, Kansas\nCity, Missouri 64106. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo\nidentification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is (816) 329-\n3800.\nAt least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by November 12, 2024), both parties must submit and\nexchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and email\naddress of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not submitted\nby this date may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\nSincerely,\nLarry White\nPresiding Official\n\n\n\ncc: Mr. Stanley Horton, President/CEO, Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC,\nstan.horton@bwpipelines.com\nMr. Ryan McClure, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nryan.mcclure@dot.gov\nMs. Mia Petrucci, Law Clerk, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nmia.petrucci@dot.gov\n\n32024048NOPV_Final Order_04282025_(23-264228)_text.pdf\n\nApril 28. 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: scott.hallam@bwpipelines.com\nScott Hallam\nChief Executive Officer\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 3-2024-048-NOPV\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nNotice of Probable Violation issued on May 21, 2024. Accordingly, this case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA;\nSusan Olenchuk, Van Ness Feldman LLP, Counsel to Texas Gas Transmission,\nLLC, sam@vnf.com;\nMichael McMahon, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer,\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP, mike.mcmahon@bwpipelines.com;\n\n\n\nJeff Sanderson, Senior Vice President, Operations, Engineering and Construction,\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP, jeff.sanderson@bwpipelines.com;\nTony Rizk, P.E., Vice President, Technical Services, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP,\ntony.rizk@bwpipelines.com;\nTina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP,\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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. 3-2024-048-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom March 6 through July 24, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted a pipeline safety inspection of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC’s (TGT or\nRespondent) facilities and records in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee.\nTGT operates an interstate natural gas pipeline facility in the southeast United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 21, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent\nhad committed one violation of 49 CFR Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$50,200 for the alleged violation.\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP responded to the Notice on behalf of Respondent by letter dated June\n18, 2024 (Response).\n1 Respondent contested the allegation of violation and the proposed civil\npenalty. TGT and the Director both submitted additional written materials on November 12,\n2024 (Pre-hearing submissions). A hearing was subsequently held on November 19, 2024 in\nKansas City, Missouri, before a Presiding Official from the PHMSA Office of Chief Counsel.\nAt the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided\nadditional written material for the record by letter dated December 19, 2024 (Post-hearing\nsubmission). The Director provided a recommendation for final order on January 10, 2025\n(Recommendation), and TGT submitted a reply to the Recommendation on January 21, 2024\n(Reply).\n1 TGT is a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines, LP.\n\n\n\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.907(a), which states:\n§ 192.907 What must an operator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a covered\npipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity management program\nthat contains all the elements described in § 192.911 and that addresses the risks on\neach covered transmission pipeline segment. The initial integrity management\nprogram must consist, at a minimum, of a framework that describes the process for\nimplementing each program element, how relevant decisions will be made and by\nwhom, a time line for completing the work to implement the program element, and\nhow information gained from experience will be continuously incorporated into the\nprogram. The framework will evolve into a more detailed and comprehensive\nprogram. An operator must make continual improvements to the program.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated section 192.907(a) when it failed to follow its\nIntegrity Management Program (IMP) Procedure Manual (Manual) on its EIS 18-2 pipeline\nsegment (Hwy 61 to Weaver Road) near Clarksdale, Mississippi. The Notice specifically alleged\nTGT failed to follow Appendix 4, Step 11, Task 2 (“Resubmission of Data (if required)”) of its\nIMP Manual by not determining whether the anomalies discovered by field personnel during\nintegrity assessment digs, but not detected by the in-line inspection (ILI) vendor, constituted a\nneed for the ILI vendor to re-grade the anomalies and re-submit the data.\nTGT contested Item 1 in its written submissions and at the hearing. Respondent argued OPS did\nnot meet the burden of proof to show that TGT failed to follow its IMP Manual.2 TGT asserted\nthe evidence in the record shows that it did make a determination not to re-grade the ILI data\nfrom the May 2021 ILI tool run implicated by the Notice.3 TGT states that it determined that re-\ngrading the anomalies was not necessary and would not have changed the ILI run results.4 TGT\nexplained the additional gouges found at excavation sites (i.e., the field data) were detected by\nthe ILI tool but not “called out” because the gouges did not meet the sizing or attribute reporting\nparameters of the ILI tool.5 TGT explained that the additional gouges discussed at the hearing\ndid not indicate any significant variations or severe discrepancies existed between the ILI and\nfield data, and that re-grading anomalies that an ILI tool is not capable of grading would not\nproduce a different result.\n6 TGT also stated that its IMP Manual does not require re-grading in\n2 See Post-hearing submission at 2-5, 11.\n3 Id. at 5-10.\n4 See Reply at 5.\n5 Id.\n6 Id. Post-hearing submission at 11.\n\n\n\nthis circumstance.7 TGT explained that it confirmed the existence of the gouges during field\nexcavations and repaired them.8 TGT argued that OPS’ disagreement with TGT’s determination\nthat re-grading the ILI data was not necessary, does not mean TGT failed to follow its IMP\nManual.9 TGT also asserted that multiple documents in the record prove that it made a sound\ndetermination not to require re-grading or re-submission of the ILI data under the IPM Manual\nprovision cited in the Notice.10 Respondent argued that “. . . OPS attempted to recast the\nallegation in the Notice as a failure by Texas Gas to document its decision not to re-grade the ILI\ndata.”11 TGT also requested that the proposed civil penalty in the Notice correspondingly be\nwithdrawn, or in the alternative, that it be recalculated and reduced to reflect the occurrence of\nonly a potential recordkeeping violation.12\nThe allegation in the Notice relates to TGT’s IMP Procedure Manual Appendix 4, Step 11, Task\n2.13 This portion of TGT’s IMP Manual addresses discrepancies between ILI run results and\nanomalies found during later field excavation activities. The relevant portion the IMP Manual\nOPS alleges TGT violated reads as follows:\nIf the field data significantly varies with the vendor data regarding\nlocation and anomaly attributes, the MGR ILI Technology &\nAnalytics will have to decide whether the vendor should resubmit\nthe data. Severe discrepancies between the actual anomaly and the\npredicted attributes can be indicative of the data caliber in the entire\nreport.\nThe company will determine whether this constitutes a need for the\nILI vendor to re-grade all anomalies. If re-grading required, Steps\n4-9 shall be repeated.\n14\nThe above procedure implicating section 190.907(a) establishes that after an ILI run is\nconducted, TGT must determine whether any significant variations in the data regarding location\nand anomaly attributes are present after comparing the ILI run data to field data. If significant\n7 Reply at 5.\n8 Id.\n9 Post-hearing submission at 11.\n10 Id. at 11-12\n11 Id. at 3.\n12 Id. at 1, 12. See also Reply at 5-6.\n13 Notice at 2; Post-hearing submission at Attachment A.\n14 Violation Report at Exhibit 1; Post-hearing submission at Attachment A.\n\n\n\nvariations are present, TGT must then decide whether to have the ILI vendor resubmit the data\nand whether, if severe discrepancies exist, all anomalies need to be re-graded.15\nOPS’ allegation in the Notice as to the existence of significant variations between the field and\nILI data is based on five gouges discussed during the hearing that were identified during post-ILI\nrun field excavation activities.16 OPS alleged the gouges had potential wall metal loss over a 15\npercent threshold that TGT had voluntarily requested be “called out” in the ILI run data, but\nwhich the ILI report did not identify.\n17 OPS therefore asserted that significant variations existed\nbetween the ILI data and the field data.\n18\nTGT disputed that the variations in data discussed by OPS at the hearing were considered\nsignificant.19 TGT stated “[t]he claims that the ILI vendor did not detect the additional gouges\nand that the field data varied significantly from the ILI data and contained severe discrepancies\nlacks evidentiary support.”20 In support of its position, TGT explained there were not location\nand anomaly discrepancies in the ILI data as compared to the corresponding field data.21 TGT\nexplained that the gouges discussed during the hearing had been detected by the ILI tool but not\n“called out” because they were outside of the sizing and attribute parameters of the ILI tool.22\nTGT stated the gouges were actually detected by the tool via deviations reflected in applicable\ndata and that that information was provided to its own field personal during later field excavation\n15 There was agreement of both parties that TGT made a determination not to re-grade the ILI anomaly data as\ndescribed in the IMP Manual provision cited in the Notice. Post-hearing submission at 1-3, 5-10. See also\nRecommendation at 7. OPS acknowledged at the hearing and in its Recommendation that TGT made such\ndetermination, stating it “ . . . does not dispute that TGT decided to not ask the ILI vendor to regrade and resubmit\nthe data.” Recommendation at 7. See also Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at: 11-12; 15: 13-22; 16: 1-16; 40: 10-19. OPS\ncharacterized the allegation at issue at the hearing as involving TGT’s failure to follow its IMP Manual via an\nalleged lack of documentation evidencing TGT’s determination. Id. TGT pointed to documentation of its\nevaluation of the ILI data and its determination to not request re-submission or re-grading of the ILI report as\nincluding: dig sheets describing the attributes and locations of called anomalies as well as the detected additional\ngouges; Pipe Evaluation Information forms; a Completed Integrity Assessment Excavation Summary (2021 ILI);\nunity plots; and, data screenshots showing deviations in the ILI data apparently caused by the gouges discussed at\nthe hearing. See Post-hearing submission at 11-12. However, as based on the discussion below regarding the lack\nof evidence to prove there were significant variations in the ILI data, this Final Order need not address the adequacy\nof TGT’s documentation of its determination addressing the May 2021 ILI run data. The Notice also did not allege\na violation of section 192.947(d), which requires a pipeline operator to maintain for the useful life of a pipeline “. . .\n[d]ocuments to support any decision . . .” made under its IMP.\n16 See Tr. at 26: 20-22; 27: 1-2; 36: 12-17; 44: 19-22; 45: 1-4 and 15-22; 46: 1-2; 51; 17-22. Recommendation at 2,\n4-11.\n17 Id.\n18 Tr. at 32: 17-22; 34: 4-14; 35: 21-22; 36: 1-3.\n19 See e.g., Tr. at 69: 9-17; 75: 19-22, 76: 1-13; 80: 9-15. See also Post-hearing submission at 1-2, 11.\n20 Post-hearing submission at 11.\n21 Post-hearing submission at 9-11.\n22 See Tr. at 61-66; 76: 1-13. Reply at 3-5.\n\n\n\nactivities, and also to OPS prior to issuance of the Notice.23 TGT posited that OPS was\nattempting to correlate the limitations of the ILI tool parameters as representing the existence of\nsignificant variations when comparing ILI data to field data.24 TGT asserted that where gouges\nthat were detected by the ILI tool but do not meet the sizing or attribute reporting parameters of\nthe ILI tool, that re-submission or re-grading would not actually result in any differences in the\nILI report (explaining there would be no purpose in re-submitting or re-grading the May 2021\nILI data).25\nA review of the record indicates neither the Notice nor OPS’ testimony at the hearing cite to an\nascertainable threshold, whether in TGT’s IMP Manual, in Part 192, or in other applicable\nreference, to establish what represents a significant variation between the field data and the ILI\ndata. OPS explained at the hearing its opinion of the definition of a significant variation as\napplicable to this ILI run (i.e., that the five gouges discussed at the hearing were not identified in\nthe ILI report).\n26 The Recommendation also did not identify an applicable reference to be able to\nascertain a threshold proving the existence of significant variations. The Recommendation\nindicated that OPS views the ILI data in this case as significantly varying under TGT’s IMP\nManual because certain gouges exceeded metal loss thresholds TGT asked the ILI vendor to\nidentify.27\nIn sum, the record lacks substantial evidence to prove that the May 2021 ILI data significantly\nvaried from the field data (or the existence of any severe discrepancies) such that a determination\nas to the necessity of re-submission or re-grading of the ILI data was required under TGT’s IMP\nManual. TGT presented evidence and testimony explaining the ILI report did not “call out” the\ngouges discussed at the hearing because the gouges did not meet sizing or attribute reporting\nparameters of the ILI tool. OPS did not provide evidence proving the presence of significant\nvariations between the ILI and field data under any provision of TGT’s IMP Manual or Part 192,\nnor evidence to overcome TGT’s evidence addressing the ILI tool sizing and attribute reporting\nparameters discussed above.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that OPS did not meet its burden of\nproving the allegation in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the Notice be\nwithdrawn.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n23 Post-hearing submission at 2. Tr. at 63: 1-20.\n24 Post-hearing submission at 10-11.\n25 TGT explained that the “ILI vendor does not re-grade metal loss anomalies caused by gouges because their\nirregular profiles are not repeatable.” Post-hearing submission at 10. See also Reply at 2-3, 5; Tr. at 91: 2-18.\n26 See Tr. at 23: 9-11; 29: 3-7; 30: 19-22; 31: 21-22; 32: 1-3 and 17-20; 34: 4-14; 35: 21-22; 36:1-3; 40: 5-19; 45:\n18-22. See also Recommendation at 2-6.\n27 Recommendation at 6 (“Central Region views the field data obtained by TGT . . . as varying significantly from the\nvendor’s data.”).\n\n\n\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,200 for Respondent’s alleged violation of\n49 CFR § 192.907(a). Since the Notice has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not\nassessed.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":20624}