{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024064NOA","title":"TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-08-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.113, 192.607(c), 192.607(e)(4), 192.607(f), 192.613(b), 192.624(a), 192.624(a)(2)(iii), 192.624(c), 192.712(b), 192.712(d)(3), 192.712(e), 192.712(g).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024064noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024064noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024064noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024064NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.113,  192.607(c),  192.607(e)(4),  192.607(f),  192.613(b),  192.624(a),  192.624(a)(2)(iii),  192.624(c),  192.712(b),  192.712(d)(3),  192.712(e),  192.712(g). The case was opened on 2024-08-15 and is reported as closed as of 2025-03-05. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024064NOA_Closure Letter_03052025_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Closure%20Letter_03052025_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Closure Letter_03052025_(23-282184)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Closure%20Letter_03052025_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Notice of Amendment_08152024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08152024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Notice of Amendment_08152024_(23-282184)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08152024_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Operator Request for Hearing and Request for Informal Meeting and Preliminary Statement of Issues (Part 3)_10152024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20and%20Preliminary%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%203)_10152024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Request for Informal Meeting and Preliminary Statement of Issues (Part 1)_10152024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20and%20Preliminary%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%201)_10152024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Request for Informal Meeting and Preliminary Statement of Issues (Part 2)_10152024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20and%20Preliminary%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%202)_10152024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02062025_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_02062025_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02062025_(23-282184)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_02062025_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\n32024064NOA_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10182024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_10182024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024064NOA_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10182024_(23-282184)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024064NOA/32024064NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_10182024_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\n32024064NOA_Notice of Amendment_08152024_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: scott.hallam@bwpipelines.com; tina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nAugust 15, 2024\nMr. Scott Hallam\nPresident/CEO\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nCPF 3-2024-064-NOA\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nFrom August 21 through October 5, 2023, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.),\ninspected Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, and Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC’s\n(BW Pipelines)1 procedures for operation and maintenance and integrity management in\nOwensboro, Kentucky.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within BW\nPipelines’ plans or procedures. The items inspected and the inadequacies are described below:\n1. § 192.113 Longitudinal joint factor (E) for steel pipe.\n(a) The longitudinal joint factor to be used in the design formula in § 192.105 is\ndetermined in accordance with the following table:\nSpecification Pipe Class Longitudinal joint factor (E)\nASTM A 53/A53M Seamless 1.00\nElectric resistance welded 1.00\n1 Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, is the primary safety relation for both Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, and Gulf South\nPipeline Company, LLC. Both Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, and Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, are\nsubsidiaries of Boardwalk Pipelines, LP. See Our Business, BOARDWALK PIPELINES,\nhttps://www.bwpipelines.com/our-business/default.aspx (last accessed August 12, 2024). The inspection covered both\nassets and therefore both assets will be referred to jointly as Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (BW Pipelines).\n\n\n\nFurnace butt welded .60\nASTM A 106 Seamless 1.00\nASTM A 333/A\n333M\nSeamless 1.00\nElectric resistance welded 1.00\nASTM A 381 Double submerged arc\nwelded\n1.00\nASTM A 671 Electric-fusion-welded 1.00\nASTM A 672 Electric-fusion-welded 1.00\nASTM A 691 Electric-fusion-welded 1.00\nAPI Spec 5L Seamless 1.00\nElectric resistance welded 1.00\nElectric flash welded 1.00\nFurnace butt welded .60\nOther Pipe over 4 inches (102\nmillimeters)\n.80\nOther Pipe 4 inches (102\nmillimeters) or less\n.60\n(b) If the type of longitudinal joint cannot be determined, the joint factor to be used\nmust not exceed that designated for “Other.”\nBW Pipelines’ written procedures did not provide adequate guidance for selecting a longitudinal\njoint factor in accordance with the requirements of § 192.113. Specifically, BW Pipelines’\nprocedure “TVC Guideline” (June 16, 2023, rev. 1.40 ) indicated that if BW Pipelines personnel\ncannot determine seam type, but can prove that the seam type cannot be derated, they call it a non-\nderated seam type with a longitudinal factor of 1.00. However, § 192.113 specifically requires that\nif the longitudinal seam type cannot be determined, the joint factor must not exceed that\ndesignated as “Other.” The procedure, as written, would be in direct conflict with the regulation.\nTherefore, BW Pipelines must amend its written procedures to comply with the requirements of\n§ 192.113.\n2. § 192.607 Verification of Pipeline Material Properties and Attributes: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Verification of material properties and attributes. If an operator does not have\ntraceable, verifiable, and complete records required by paragraph (b) of this section,\nthe operator must develop and implement procedures for conducting nondestructive\nor destructive tests, examinations, and assessments in order to verify the material\nproperties of aboveground line pipe and components, and of buried line pipe and\ncomponents when excavations occur at the following opportunities: Anomaly direct\nexaminations, in situ evaluations, repairs, remediations, maintenance, and excavations\n\n\n\nthat are associated with replacements or relocations of pipeline segments that are\nremoved from service. The procedures must also provide for the following: . . . .\nBW Pipelines’ written procedure for obtaining material properties opportunistically did not\nprovide adequate guidance in accordance with § 192.607(c). Specifically, BW Pipelines’\nprocedure “Integrity Management Plan” (IMP), Chapter 16, “Verification of Material Properties\nand Attributes,” Section 1.6, “Definitions and Acronyms,” defined opportunistic as, \"A line\nexcavation where no less than a total of 30 days are available to plan material verification\nactivities, non-destructive testing equipment and technician(s) are available, and it is safe to access\nthe excavation to perform the testing.\" Obtaining the material properties for above and below\nground line pipe and components required by § 192.607(c) must be done when certain excavations\noccur, and does not allow operators to complete such activities at arbitrary times, such as “when\n30 days are available.” Boardwalk must amend its written procedures to comply with the\nrequirements of § 192.607(c) in accordance with § 192.605(b)(1).\n3. § 192.607 Verification of Pipeline Material Properties and Attributes: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Sampling multiple segments of pipe. To verify material properties and attributes\nfor a population of multiple, comparable segments of pipe without traceable,\nverifiable, and complete records, an operator may use a sampling program in\naccordance with the following requirements:\n(1) . . . .\n(4) If the test results identify line pipe with properties that are not consistent with\navailable information or existing expectations or assumed properties used for\noperations and maintenance in the past, the operator must establish an expanded\nsampling program. The expanded sampling program must use valid statistical bases\ndesigned to achieve at least a 95% confidence level that material properties used in\nthe operation and maintenance of the pipeline are valid. The approach must address\nhow the sampling plan will be expanded to address findings that reveal material\nproperties that are not consistent with all available information or existing\nexpectations or assumed material properties used for pipeline operations and\nmaintenance in the past. Operators must notify PHMSA in advance of using an\nexpanded sampling approach in accordance with § 192.18.\nBW Pipelines’ written procedures for expanded sampling if test results identify line properties that\nare not consistent with available information were inadequate because they were not in accordance\nwith § 192.607(e)(4). Specifically, BW Pipelines’ IMP Chapter 16, section 4.3, “Incorporating\nILI to Delineate Populations,” needs either a cross reference to section 4.6, “Inconsistencies in\nMeasured Properties and Attributes,” or be incorporated into section 4.6. This is due to the fact\nthat these sections have duplicative requirements of the Manager of Pipeline Safety (or designee)\nto document the discrepancies between ILI and existing records. However, the IMP should also\naddress how the sampling plan will be expanded to address findings that reveal material properties\n\n\n\nthat are not consistent with all available information, or existing expectations, or assumed material\nproperties used in pipeline operations and maintenance in the past as required by § 192.607(e)(4).\nBoardwalk must amend its written procedures to comply with the requirements of\n§§ 192.607(e)(4) and 192.605(b)(1).\n4. § 192.607 Verification of Pipeline Material Properties and Attributes: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) Components. For mainline pipeline components other than line pipe, an operator\nmust develop and implement procedures in accordance with paragraph (c) of this\nsection for establishing and documenting the ANSI rating or pressure rating (in\naccordance with ASME/ANSI B16.5 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7)) . . . .\nBW Pipelines’ written procedures for verification of material properties for components did not\nprovide adequate guidance in accordance to § 192.607(a). Specifically, in BW Pipelines’ IMP\nChapter 16, “Verification of Pipeline Materials and Properties,” Section 5, “Non-Line Pipe\nComponents,” there was no guidance or specificity on when the attributes to be confirmed would\nbe obtained. Section 5 indicated that a plan will be established, but did not provide guidance on\nwhat that plan should consist of (i.e., when the plan will be completed, how does opportunistic\napply for components). Therefore, BW Pipelines must amend its written procedures to comply\nwith the requirements of §§ 192.607(f) and 192.605(b)(1).\n5. § 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no\nimmediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase\nout the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out,\nreduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with\n§ 192.619(a) and (b).\nBW Pipelines’ procedures for continuing surveillance did not provide enough guidance in\naccordance with § 192.613(b). Specifically, BW Pipelines’ procedure “OM-NG 5010 Surveillance\nProgram and Leak Surveys” did not provide any detail about steps to be taken in case of\nunsatisfactory conditions with no immediate hazards. The procedure also did not have any details\non how to recondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be\nreconditioned or phased out, how to reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in\naccordance with § 192.613(b). Therefore, BW Pipelines must amend its written procedures to\ncomply with the requirements of §§ 192.613(b) and 192.605(b)(1).\n6. § 192.624 Maximum allowable operating pressure reconfirmation: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n\n\n\n(a) Applicability. Operators of onshore steel transmission pipeline segments must\nreconfirm the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of all pipeline\nsegments in accordance with the requirements of this section if either of the following\nconditions are met:\n(1) . . . .\n(b) The pipeline segment's MAOP was established in accordance with § 192.619(c),\nthe pipeline segment's MAOP is greater than or equal to 30 percent of the specified\nminimum yield strength, and the pipeline segment is located in one of the following\nareas:\n(i) . . . .\n(iii) A moderate consequence area as defined in § 192.3, if the pipeline segment can\naccommodate inspection by means of instrumented inline inspection tools.\nBW Pipelines’ procedure, “TVC Guideline,” scope of coverage did not include moderate\nconsequence area as defined in § 192.3 as an applicable area per § 192.624(a)(2)(iii). Specifically,\nthe “TVC Guideline” stated that “HCAs and Class 3 or 4 locations are the only areas required to\nhave TVC work completed based on the current regulations,” when moderate consequence areas\nare also required to be TVC’d. BW Pipelines’ must amend its written procedures to comply with\nthe requirements of §§ 192.607(a) and 192.605(b)(1).\n7. § 192.624 Maximum allowable operating pressure reconfirmation: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Maximum allowable operating pressure determination. Operators of a pipeline\nsegment meeting a condition in paragraph (a) of this section must reconfirm its\nMAOP using one of the following methods: . . . .\nBW Pipelines’ procedures for the methods to be used for reconfirmation did not provide adequate\nguidance as required under § 192.624(c). Specifically, BW Pipelines’ procedure IMP, Chapter 15,\n“Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Reconfirmation,” section 2.3 was a direct cut and paste\nof Methods 1 through 6 from the regulations. There was no specificity on who is responsible for\nthe action, how the methods are to be conducted, references to other procedures, etc. BW Pipelines\nmust amend its written procedures to comply with the requirements of §§ 192.624(c) and\n192.605(b)(1).\n8. § 192.712 Analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Corrosion metal loss. When analyzing corrosion metal loss under this section, an\noperator must use a suitable remaining strength calculation method including,\nASME/ANSI B31G (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7); R–STRENG\n(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7); or an alternative equivalent method of\nremaining strength calculation that will provide an equally conservative result.\n\n\n\nBW Pipelines’ procedures did not provide adequate guidance for analyzing corrosion metal loss as\nrequired under § 192.712(b). Specifically, BW Pipelines’ procedure IMP, Chapter 7,\n“Remediation of Anomalous Conditions,” section 2.4.3.1, “Corrosion Metal Loss,” did not include\nadequate detail to instruct BW Pipelines’ employees on how to conduct an analysis of corrosion\nmetal loss. Section 2.4.3.1 did not address how an equally conservative result would be\ndetermined when compared to R-STRENG or ASME/ANSI B31G, and how that is recorded.\nSection 2.4.3.1 also did not discuss the limitations of the models, which would provide guidance\non choosing the best model. Lastly, there was no mention of the notification to PHMSA, as\nrequired by § 192.712(b), if BW Pipelines were to use a model that would produce a less\nconservative result. Therefore, BW Pipelines must amend its written procedures to comply with\nthe requirements of §§ 192.712(b) and 192.605(b)(1).\n9. § 192.712 Analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level.\n(a) . . . .\n(d) Cracks and crack-like defects –\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Cracks that survive pressure testing. For cases in which the operator does not have\nin-line inspection crack anomaly data and is analyzing potential crack defects that\ncould have survived a pressure test, the operator must calculate the largest potential\ncrack defect sizes using the methods in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If pipe\nmaterial toughness is not documented in traceable, verifiable, and complete records,\nthe operator must use one of the following for Charpy v-notch toughness values based\nupon minimum operational temperature and equivalent to a full-size specimen value:\nBW Pipelines’ procedures for analyzing potential crack defects that could have survived a\npressure test did not provide adequate guidance in accordance with § 192.712(d)(3). Specifically,\nBW Pipelines’ procedure IMP, Chapter 7, “Remediation of Anomalous Conditions,” section\n2.4.3.2, “Cracks and Crack-Like Indications,” was simply a restatement of the regulations. There\nwas no specificity on how they would determine the largest defect that could survive the pressure\ntest, nor was there any guidance how they would determine the remaining life of the defect. BW\nPipelines must amend its written procedures to comply with the requirements of §§ 192.712(d)\nand 192.605(b)(1).\n10. § 192.712 Analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Data. In performing the analyses of predicted or assumed anomalies or defects in\naccordance with this section, an operator must use data as follows.\nBW Pipeline’ procedures for performing analysis of the data for anomalies or defects did not\nprovide enough guidance in accordance with § 192.712(e). Specifically, BP Pipelines’ procedure\n“Integrity Management Plan” Chapter 7, “Remediation of Anomalous Conditions,” sections\n\n\n\n2.4.4. through 2.4.6 simply repeated the regulation. Thus, BW Pipeline’s IMP did not provide\nany guidance on how to conduct what the regulations required. For example, in section 2.4.4, the\nprocedure stated that the SME must explicitly analyze and account for uncertainties in reported\nassessment results. However, the procedure provided no guidance in how they are supposed to\ndo this. Therefore, BW Pipelines must amend its written procedures to comply with the\nrequirements of §§ 192.712(e) and 192.605(b)(1).\n11. § 192.712 Analysis of predicted failure pressure and critical strain level.\n(a) . . . .\n(g) Records. An operator must keep for the life of the pipeline records of the\ninvestigations, analyses, and other actions taken in accordance with the requirements\nof this section. Records must document justifications, deviations, and determinations\nmade for the following, as applicable: . . . .\nBW Pipelines’ procedures for record keeping for the analysis of predicted failure pressures did not\nproved adequate guidance in accordance with § 192.712(g). Specifically, BW Pipelines’ IMP,\nChapter 7, “Remediation of Anomalous Conditions,” section 2.4.8, “Records,” did not adequately\nexplain who is responsible for the records, how they are tracked, and where the information is\nstored. BW Pipelines must amend its written procedures to comply with the requirements of\n§§ 192.712(g) and 192.605(b)(1).\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nEnforcement Proceedings.\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of\nthe document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your\nplans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend\nyour plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not\ncontesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within\n\n\n\n90 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\nOnce the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this\nenforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested that BW Pipelines maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures)\nand submit the total to Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to\nCPF 3-2024-064-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic\nformat whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, BW Pipelines, LP,\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n\n32024064NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02062025_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\nDate: February 6, 2025\nFrom: Joseph St. Peter\nTo: File\nRe: Continuance of Informal Hearing in CPF No. 3-2024-064-NOA (Texas Gas Transmission,\nLLC, and Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC (Boardwalk Pipelines))\nBy electronic mail on January 30, 2025, Ryan McClure and Mia Petrucci, Counsel for Central\nRegion, requested a call to discuss postponement of the informal hearing scheduled on February\n27, 2025, in the above-listed matter. A call to discuss the request with the parties was held on\nFebruary 5, 2025, during which it was discussed that the parties are still engaged in settlement\ndiscussions and that Boardwalk Pipelines was amenable to the request to postpone the scheduled\nhearing. The request is granted, and the informal hearing in this case will be held on Thursday\nMay 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Central Daylight Time at Central Region’s office in Kansas City,\nMissouri. Pre-hearing submissions under 49 CFR § 190.211(d) are due no later than May 19,\n2025.\n\n32024064NOA_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10182024_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\nOctober 18, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tony.rizk@bwpipelines.com and gregory.ochs@dot.gov\nMr. Tony G. Rizk, P.E.\nVice President, Technical Services\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP\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, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP\nCPF No. 3-2024-064-NOA\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\nAmendment issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-\nreferenced case. The hearing will take place on February 27, 2025, following another hearing\ninvolving the same parties already scheduled on that date in Case No. CPF 3-2024-066-NOPV.\nThe hearing will be held at the PHMSA Central Region office, 901 Locust Street, Suite 480,\nKansas City, Missouri 64106. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present\nphoto identification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is\n(816) 329-3800.\nAt least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by February 18, 2025), both parties must submit\nand exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name\nand email address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically.\nMaterials not submitted by this date may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not\nhesitate to contact me.\n\n\n\nSincerely,\nLarry White\nPresiding Official\ncc: Mr. Scott Hallam, President/CEO, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP,\nscott.hallam@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\n32024064NOA_Closure Letter_03052025_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: scott.hallam@bwpipelines.com;\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nMarch 5, 2025\nMr. Scott Hallam\nPresident/CEO\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nRE: CPF 3-2024-064-NOA\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nFrom August 21 through October 5, 2023, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.),\nconducted an inspection of the procedures for operation and maintenance and integrity\nmanagement of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, and Gulf South Pipeline, LLC (BW Pipelines) in\nOwensboro, Kentucky. On August 15, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.206, PHMSA issued a\nNotice of Amendment (Notice) in the above-referenced case. The Notice proposed amendment of\nBW Pipeline’s procedures.\nBW Pipelines submitted its amended procedures on February 20, 2025. PHMSA has reviewed the\namended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in the Notice have been\ncorrected.\nThis letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary, and this case is now closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, BW Pipelines, tina.baker@bwpipelines.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":26832}