{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024065WL","title":"TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-08-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.607(b), 192.624(a)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024065wl.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024065wl.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024065wl","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024065WL","body":"Warning Letter involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.607(b),  192.624(a)(2). The case was opened on 2024-08-14 and is reported as closed as of 2024-08-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024065WL_Operator Response to Notice and Request Withdrawal of Notice Letter (Part 2)_09202024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024065WL/32024065WL_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20Withdrawal%20of%20Notice%20Letter%20(Part%202)_09202024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024065WL_Operator Response to Notice and Request Withdrawal of Notice Letter and Request Case File (Part 1)_09202024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024065WL/32024065WL_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20Withdrawal%20of%20Notice%20Letter%20and%20Request%20Case%20File%20(Part%201)_09202024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024065WL_Warning Letter_08142024_(23-282184).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024065WL/32024065WL_Warning%20Letter_08142024_(23-282184).pdf\n\n32024065WL_Warning Letter_08142024_(23-282184)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024065WL/32024065WL_Warning%20Letter_08142024_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\n32024065WL_Warning Letter_08142024_(23-282184)_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: scott.hallam@bwpipelines.com; tina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nAugust 14, 2024\nMr. Scott Hallam\nPresident/CEO\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nCPF 3-2024-065-WL\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nFrom August 21 through October 5, 2023, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected the Texas Gas Transmission, LLC and Gulf\nSouth Pipeline Company, LLC (BW Pipelines)1 procedures and records for the new Gas\nIntegrity Rule2 in Owensboro, Kentucky.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that BW has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. § 192.607 Verification of Pipeline Material Properties and Attributes: Onshore steel\ntransmission pipelines.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Documentation of material properties and attributes. Records established under this\nsection documenting physical pipeline characteristics and attributes, including\ndiameter, wall thickness, seam type, and grade (e.g., yield strength, ultimate tensile\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\nboth assets and therefore both assets will be referred to as Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (BW Pipelines).\n2 84 Fed. Reg. 52180 (Oct. 1, 2019).\n\n\n\nstrength, or pressure rating for valves and flanges, etc.), must be maintained for the life of\nthe pipeline and be traceable, verifiable, and complete. Charpy v-notch toughness\nvalues established under this section needed to meet the requirements of the ECA\nmethod at § 192.624(c)(3) or the fracture mechanics requirements at § 192.712 must be\nmaintained for the life of the pipeline.\nBW Pipelines failed to maintain records for material verification that are traceable, verifiable,\nand complete (TVC), per the requirements of § 192.607(b). Specifically, BW Pipelines relied on\na single source to meet the requirement of TVC. BW Pipelines provided a record of a single\nsource to demonstrate TVC of a segment of pipe installed in 1928. The example was presented\nto PHMSA in a PowerPoint presentation, entitled “Boardwalk TVC Program,” slides 21-23,\nExample 3. The single record was created in 1969; the pipe was installed in 1928. There was no\nindication of where the information contained in the record was sourced from, as it was clearly\ntranscribed from another document. BW Pipelines maintained that in cases of “old” pipe\ninstallation, a single source record is the only record it maintains for TVC determination.\nThis record only included the date of installation, station numbers, and pipe attributes of outside\ndiameter and wall thickness, which is not sufficient to meet the requirements of § 192.607(b), as\nit did not include specific characteristics and attributes including yield strength, ultimate tensile\nstrength, and pressure ratings. No other record was provided to demonstrate full TVC.\nHowever, even the information included within the record (i.e., the date of installation, station\nnumbers, and pipe attributes of outside diameter and wall thickness), is inadequate to\ndemonstrate TVC of those elements. This is because a single source record, such as this relevant\nrecord, cannot form the basis of reasonable justification for TVC determination for several\nreasons. First, it cannot meet the definition of traceable. Traceable records are those which can\nbe clearly linked to original information about a pipeline segment or facility. Information from a\ntranscribed document should be verified with complementary or supporting documents. Second,\nthese types of records cannot be verified. Verifiable records are those in which information is\nconfirmed by other complementary, but separate, documentation. Third, these types of records\nare often “incomplete.” Complete records are those in which the record is finalized as evidenced\nby a signature, date, or other appropriate marking such as a corporate stamp or seal.\nHere, the relevant record cannot serve as an adequate basis for TVC because it (1) did not have a\ncomplementary or supporting documentation, (2) cannot be verified by complementary or\nsupporting documentation, and (3) did not have any indication of being “finalized,” in addition to\n(4) missing other specific characteristics and attributes (yield strength, ultimate tensile strength,\nand pressure ratings).\nThus, the single record provided did not meet the Traceable, Verifiable or Complete aspects of\nTVC; therefore, the pipe should not have been considered TVC’d. As a result, the attributes must\nbe opportunistically obtained through § 192.607(c) efforts.\n2. § 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 segments\nin accordance with the requirements of this section if either of the following conditions\nare met:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) The pipeline segment's MAOP was established in accordance with § 192.619(c), the\npipeline 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. . . .\nBW Pipelines did not include all of its applicable § 192.619(c) lines in the MAOP\nReconfirmation Plan, as required by § 192.624(a)(2). BW Pipelines provided PHMSA the\nfollowing list of § 192.619(c) lines which were not included in the reconfirmation plan:\nPipeline Mileage\nMLS 26-1TT 21.721\nMLS 26-2TT 18.168\nBAE 26-1TT 5.432\nBAE 30-1TT 4.900\nEIS 18-1TT 3.027\nIndex 129 2.814\nIndex 300 2.066\nEUT 20-1TT 1.058\nIndex 311 0.499\nIndex 130 0.346\nIndex 266-L 0.122\nIndex 266 0.103\nEIS 18-2TT 0.058\nEUR-16-1TT 0.003\nEUR-16-2TT 0.003\nSHC 20-1TT 0.002\nIndex 287 0.001\nIndex 205.4 0.001\nTotal 60.3\nBW Pipelines explained to PHMSA that these pipelines were not included in its reconfirmation\nplan because it had a valid hydrotest for each line. Section 192.624(a)(2) requires that all\npipelines whose MAOP was established under § 192.619(c) must be reconfirmed if they are\nlocated in a Class 3 or 4, or an MCA that can accommodate an inline inspection tool. The\nregulation does not provide that § 192.619(c) pipe that was previously hydrostatically tested is\nexempt from § 192.624(a)(2) applicability. The line segments in question must be included in the\nreconfirmation plan to be reconfirmed as required by § 192.624(a)(2).\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$266,015 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,660,135 for a\n\n\n\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after January 6, 2023, and before\nDecember 28, 2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed $257,664 per violation per day the\nviolation persists, up to a maximum of $2,576,627 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after March 21, 2022, and before January 6, 2023, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $239,142 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,391,142 for\na related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after May 3, 2021, and before March\n21, 2022, the maximum penalty may not exceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation\npersists, up to a maximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after January 11, 2021, and before May 3, 2021, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $222,504 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for\na related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July 31, 2019, and before\nJanuary 11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per violation per day the\nviolation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation\noccurring on or after November 27, 2018, and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may\nnot exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP, being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 3-2024-065-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP,\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":11190}