BOARDWALK PETROCHEMICAL PIPELINE, LLC — Safety Order

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: scott.hallam@bwpipelines.com; tina.baker@bwpipelines.com Mr. Scott Hallam President & CEO Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77036 CPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO Dear Mr. Hallam: Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, which was executed on June 20, 2025. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Linda Daugherty Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement cc: David Barrett, Acting Region Director, PHMSA Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Susan Olenchuk, Counsel, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, sam@vnf.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO CONSENT ORDER By letter dated December 18, 2024, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) to Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (BPP or Respondent). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions exist on BPP’s ethylene pipeline system in Louisiana and Texas that pose an integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain corrective measures to remedy the alleged conditions and ensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the potential risk. In response to the Notice, Respondent requested an informal consultation, whereupon the parties engaged in discussions. As a result of those discussions, the Parties have agreed to a Consent Agreement that settles all the allegations in the Notice. Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this Consent Order issued pursuant to § 190.219. BPP is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement pursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 CFR § 190.5. ______________________ ______________________ Linda Daugherty Date Issued Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 3U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) CPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO CONSENT AGREEMENT On June 10, 2024, Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (“Boardwalk” or Respondent) learned from a third party there was a leak on its pipeline system that transports liquid ethylene from Port Neches, Texas, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The pipeline system is approximately 166.64 miles long and consists of 16-inch diameter, low frequency electric resistance weld (LF- ERW) pipeline. On June 14, 2024, Boardwalk filed a report with the National Response Center (NRC). The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, initiated a safety inspection on June 14, 2024. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated December 18, 2024, a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions exist on Respondent’s pipeline system that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. The Notice also proposed that Boardwalk take certain corrective measures to remedy the alleged conditions and ensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the alleged integrity risk. On January 16, 2025, Boardwalk responded to the Notice by submitting a written response and request for an informal consultation under 49 CFR § 190.239(b)(2). An informal consultation was held on February 25, 2025. As a result of the informal consultations, PHMSA and Respondent (the Parties) agree that settlement of this proceeding by entry into this Consent Agreement (Agreement) is the most appropriate means of resolving the issues raised in the Notice, will avoid further administrative proceedings or litigation, and is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.239(b)(2), without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, and upon consent and agreement, the Parties agree to the following terms and conditions.#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 4I. General Provisions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to the Notice, Respondent and its referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Respondent agrees, for purposes of this Agreement, to address the integrity risks identified in the Notice by completing the actions specified in Section II of this agreement (Corrective Measures) and to abide by the terms of this Agreement. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to contest the adequacy of the Notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except for the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth herein. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline system referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective transferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the transfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 58. 9. 10. 11. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement. This Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil or administrative proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault, or liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or in future PHMSA enforcement actions. II. Corrective Measures: 12. For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms are defined as: a. b. c. d. “Director” is the Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); “Effective Date” is the date on which the Consent Order is issued by the Associate Administrator incorporating the terms of this Agreement; “Affected Pipeline System” means the approximately 166.64 miles of the LF- ERW, 16-inch diameter Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline transporting liquid ethylene, originating in Port Neches, Texas, and ending in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and “Leak Location” means the leak identified on June 10, 2024 at Pipeline Station 847+76 along the Sabine River in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, which was reported to the NRC on June 14, 2024.#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 613. 14. 15. 16. 17. e. “Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps” means mechanical bolt-on leak clamps existing on the Affected Pipeline System on the Effective Date of this Agreement. Boardwalk has completed a permanent repair of the pipe at the Leak Location at Station 847+76 by removing and replacing the section of pipe experiencing the leak, along with the bolt-on leak clamp manufactured by PLIDCO that had been installed in 2018 to repair a pinhole leak in the seam of the pipe. The removed section of pipe also contained a non- leaking PLIDCO bolt-on leak clamp. Although PLIDCO’s website states that “[f]or permanent repair, the fitting can be welded to the pipeline while it is under flow,” welding on an ethylene pipeline presents significant safety hazards. Therefore, none of the clamps removed from the Leak Location had been longitudinally or circumferentially welded to the pipeline; nor had the studs been seal-welded. PLIDCO and PHMSA were present in the field when the leaking clamp was removed and were present in the laboratory during testing of the clamps and clamp seals. Boardwalk sent the removed section of pipe and the PLIDCO clamps to a third party for metallurgical and laboratory analysis. The third party submitted a preliminary copy of the metallurgical report to the Director and to Boardwalk. The third party provided Boardwalk and the Director a finalized copy of the metallurgical report and Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on April 24, 2025. The RCA described various versions of PLIDCO’s clamp installation instructions that have existed since 2011 and found that the PLIDCO installation instructions likely used to install the clamp at the Leak Location in 2018 did not specify the maximum size of the gap allowed between the clamp’s two side bars. The RCA stated that an uneven gap existed between the side bars and that PLIDCO’s installation instructions for side bar gap tolerances were too ambiguous at the time of installation. The RCA concluded that both of these factors contributed to the eventual leak in the PLIDCO clamp. The RCA stated that, since 2018, PLIDCO has revised its clamp installation instructions several times and now clearly specifies the maximum allowable size of the side bar gap. The RCA recommends that Boardwalk consider performing instrumented leakage surveys along the Affected Pipeline System where remaining PLIDCO clamps (installed between 2016 and 2019) are located. The RCA recommended that the surveys span 50 feet on either side of the individual PLIDCO clamp locations and be conducted three times each calendar year at intervals not to exceed five months. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, Respondent agrees to perform the Corrective Measures set forth below. Based on the findings of the RCA, Boardwalk shall, within 90 days of the Effective Date, revise its operating procedures to state that, when installing a bolt-on leak clamp, Boardwalk shall use the manufacturer’s most current specifications and installation instructions for the clamp to be installed. In addition, Boardwalk shall incorporate, if it has not already done so, an Operator Qualification (OQ) task specific to the installation of pressure containing bolt-on clamps that Boardwalk considers to be a repair method,#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 7within 90 days of the Effective Date. Boardwalk shall provide a copy of the revised procedures and OQ task to the Director for review and approval within 90 days of the Effective Date. 18. Clamp Remedial Work Plan. a. Boardwalk shall submit to the Director for approval, within 30 days of the Effective Date, a Clamp Remedial Work Plan (CRWP) for monitoring of the Affected Pipeline System and the repair of any leaking bolt-on clamp. i. ii. iii. iv. v. The CRWP must identify and provide to the Director a list of all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps and include available data on the installation date, clamp manufacturer, and the type of flaw they were applied to (e.g. leaking pipe, non-leaking seam feature, etc.). Boardwalk shall increase the frequency of monitoring for leaks to monthly at the locations of all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps using the instrumented leak detection equipment that PHMSA previously approved in CPF No. 3- 2023-020-NOPV. Boardwalk shall submit the monthly monitoring results to the Director quarterly, beginning 90 days after the Effective Date. If a bolt-on clamp is found to be leaking on the pipeline, Boardwalk will secure the area and schedule a repair that will be performed as soon as Boardwalk obtains any required permits and workspaces. The repair will be performed in a manner consistent with applicable Part 195 regulations in effect at the time of the repair. Boardwalk will notify the Director of the leak and provide monthly status reports until the leak is repaired. If Boardwalk removes a block valve segment from service on the Affected Pipeline System for maintenance, plant outage, or for any other reason, Boardwalk will voluntarily remove all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps that are located in that block valve segment and replace them in a manner consistent with applicable Part 195 regulations in effect at the time of the removal and replacement. Boardwalk will provide advance notification to the Director of any plans to remove Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps. Boardwalk is not required to remove any non-leaking PLIDCO clamps that may be installed on the Affected Pipeline System after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Any such PLIDCO clamps installed after the Effective Date must be installed in accordance with the revised procedures and OQ task specified in paragraph 17. Whenever an Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamp is replaced, Boardwalk shall notify the Director of the repair method used not later than 30 days after the replacement.#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 8b. c. Boardwalk must revise its CRWP as necessary to incorporate new information obtained as a result of performing leak monitoring, performing pipeline repairs, or identifying a previously unidentified bolt-on clamp that was installed before the Effective Date of this Agreement. Boardwalk shall submit any such plan revisions to the Director for approval within 15 days after making the revision. The CRWP shall remain in effect until all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps have been removed. 19. Boardwalk will develop a written procedure to calculate the volume released from leaks on the Affected Pipeline System to the Director for approval within 90 days of the Effective Date. The computations should address all types of leaks on the pipeline, to include minor leaks, cracks, etc. 20. Extensions of Time. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of the terms of the Agreement upon a written request timely submitted demonstrating good cause for the extension. The Director shall respond in writing to any such request. III. Review and Approval Process: 21. With respect to any submission under Section II (Corrective Measures) of this Agreement that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specified, reasonable conditions; (c) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the foregoing. If the Director approves, approves in part, or approves with conditions, Respondent will take all actions as approved by the Director, subject to Respondent’s right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures with respect to any conditions the Director identifies. If the Director disapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent a written notice of the deficiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it for approval. IV. Dispute Resolution: 22. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement, including any decision of the Director under the terms of Section II (Corrective Measures). If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director, Respondent may submit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. Such request must be made in writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Central Region, and to the Associate Administrator, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this paragraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate Administrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 9timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process. V. Enforcement: 23. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $272,926 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with the determinations made by the Director, or in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator if resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution process herein. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223. All work plans and associated schedules set forth or referenced in Section II (Corrective Measures) are automatically incorporated into this Agreement and are enforceable in the same manner. VI. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure: 24. Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, Respondent agrees to maintain records demonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement for a period of at least five (5) years following completion of all work to be performed, unless a longer period of time is required pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 190-199. For any reports, plans, or other deliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement, Respondent may assert a claim of business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by PHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7. Respondent must mark the claim of confidentiality in writing on each page, and include a statement specifying the grounds for each claim of confidentiality. PHMSA determines release of any information submitted pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders. VII. Modification: 25. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties. VIII. Termination: 26. This Agreement will remain in effect until the Corrective Measures in Section II are satisfied, as determined by the Director. The Agreement shall not terminate until the Director confirms, in writing, that the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 10IX. Ratification: 27. 28. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to this document. The Parties hereby agree to all findings, conditions, and terms of this Agreement. [Signature Lines on Following Page]#

32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 11For Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipelines, LLC: ___________________________________ ________________________ Date For PHMSA: ________________________________________ Acting Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Scott.Hallam@bwpipelines.com; tina.baker@bwpipelines.com December 18, 2024 Mr. Scott Hallam President & CEO Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC 9 Greenway Plaza Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77036 CPF 3-2024-081-NOPSO Dear Mr. Hallam: Enclosed is a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) issued in the above-referenced case. The Notice proposes that Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (BPP) take certain measures with respect to its ethylene pipeline system in Louisiana and Texas to ensure pipeline safety. Your options for responding are set forth in the Notice. Your receipt of the Notice constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. We look forward to a successful resolution to ensure pipeline safety. Please direct any questions on this matter to me at 816-308-2783. Sincerely, Gregory A. Ochs Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Notice of Proposed Safety Order RECEIPT CONFIRMATION REQUESTED#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY Central Region Kansas City, MO 64106 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SAFETY ORDER Background and Purpose Pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has initiated an investigation of the safety of Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC’s (BPP or Respondent) ethylene pipeline system in Louisiana and Texas. As a result of the investigation, it appears that conditions exist on your pipeline facilities that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117(l), PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order, notifying you of the preliminary findings of the investigation, and proposing that you take measures to ensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the potential risk. Preliminary Findings • The affected pipeline is the approximately 166.64 miles long, 16-inch diameter, low- frequency electric resistance weld (LF-ERW) Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline (the Pipeline or BP Pipeline) transporting liquid ethylene, which is a highly volatile liquid (HVL), originating in Port Neches, Texas, and ending in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. • A leak was discovered on the Pipeline by Colonial Pipeline (Colonial) personnel while performing maintenance work on its pipeline, which is adjacent to the BP Pipeline, on June 10, 2024. Colonial determined that the leak was not on its pipeline and notified BPP personnel. On June 14, 2024, BPP determined that its pipeline was leaking and filed a report with the NRC.1 The leak was presumed to be caused by a PLIDCO type clamp 1 See NRC Report #1402039.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 3failure located at Pipeline Station 847 along the Sabine River in Cameron County, Louisiana.2 • The leak is being monitored by BPP. The leak is being aerial patrolled every two weeks and BPP is preforming a ground non-instrumented leak survey on a bi-monthly basis. Additionally, an instrumented leak detection is being performed quarterly. • The leak referenced above at Pipeline Station 847 along the Sabine River in Cameron County, Louisiana is unrepaired. The stability, type, and nature of the defect is unknown due to the operator not removing the PLIDCO clamp and backfilling the leak. The Pipeline is still operating, and no pressure reduction has been taken. • The Pipeline was manufactured by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company in 1953 and has a LF-ERW, longitudinal pipe seam. The Pipeline is 16 inches in diameter, grade X52, with a wall thickness of 0.312 inches. The coating is coal tar enamel. Pre-1971 LF-ERW pipe is well known to have failures in the long seam. BPP’s 2023 Annual Report to PHMSA indicates that 166.64 out of 177.9 miles of the pipeline is LF-ERW pipe. • Pipelines manufactured before 1971 with LF-ERW longitudinal seams are susceptible to failures due to multiple deficiencies created by the welding process including: cold welds, hook cracks that are enlarged by fatigue, other manufacturing defects enlarged by fatigue, selective seam weld corrosion, hydrogen stress cracking, sulfide stress cracking, and stress corrosion cracking. • The Pipeline has had 18 leaks due to use of LF-ERW pipe from 2016 to present, not including the current leak. Previous integrity assessment and continual evaluation methods have proven ineffective to detect these leaks. These leaks were discovered by unknown methods that were not indicated by BPP’s inline inspection (ILI) tool. Sixteen of these leaks were repaired with PLIDCO type clamps. The remaining two were cut out and replaced with new pipe. • In 2018, BPP installed a PLIDCO type clamp to repair a failure of the LF-ERW long seam. • BPP has stated that a PLIDCO type clamp used to repair the 2018 failure did not function as intended. This has not been confirmed as the root cause of the current failure. • BPP did not report the 18 leaks discovered between 2016 and 2024 to the National Response Center (NRC) as required by 49 C.F.R § 195.52, nor was an accident report filed as required by § 195.54. • The in-service failure of the LF-ERW longitudinal seam on the BP Pipeline is a condition posing a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, and the environment. Due to its proximity to a navigable waterway, the leak could affect a high consequence area (HCA), as defined in § 195.450. 2 PLIDCO is a manufacturer of pipeline leak repair and maintenance fittings.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 4• The Pipeline transports ethylene, which is a petrochemical HVL used in the manufacture of plastics and related products. The Pipeline has a maximum operating pressure of 1336 pounds per square inch (psi). Ethylene is a very flammable product and extreme caution must be used while performing repairs on the pipeline. • The Pipeline traverses an area dominated by wetlands and swamps along the Gulf Coast coastal plains. The climate is humid subtropical. The geology is unconsolidated, redeposited sands and clays to silty sediments of aeolian and alluvial origin. • The Pipeline traverses the Lower Neches Water Management of Texas and the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. There are 33.89 miles of Unusually Sensitive Areas (USA), which include drinking water and ecological resources, according to BPP’s 2023 Annual Report. • The Pipeline traverses several highly populated areas. These include the cities of Port Neches and Orange in Texas. These areas are industrial in character and stable in population growth. It also traverses the cities of Lake Charles, Opelousas, and Baton Rouge in Louisiana. The Pipeline generally traverses the southern side of these cities, and these areas are characterized by rapid growth of commercial and residential buildings. BPP’s 2023 Annual Report states that there are 38.59 miles of High Population and Other population areas. • Three NTSB recommendations have been issued related to ERW pipe or manufacturing defects: o Williams pipeline failure Mounds View, MN July 8, 1986. NTSB report PB87- 916502. NTSB recommended that PHMSA obtain sufficient data on LF-ERW pipe and determine if its continued use presents an unreasonable hazard to public safety and take appropriate regulatory action for identified deficiencies. (Class II, Priority Action) (Safety Recommendation P-87-26). o Dixie Pipeline failure of Propane pipeline Carmichael, MS November 1, 2007. NTSB Report PB2009-916501. NTSB recommended conducting a comprehensive study to identify actions that can be implemented by pipeline operators to eliminate catastrophic longitudinal seam failures in electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe; at a minimum, the study should include assessments of the effectiveness and effects of in-line inspection tools, hydrostatic pressure tests, and spike pressure tests; pipe material strength characteristics and failure mechanisms; the effects of aging on ERW pipelines; operational factors; and data collection and predictive analysis. (Safety Recommendation P-09-1). Based on the results of the study requested in Safety Recommendation P-09-1, NTSB recommended implementing the actions needed.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 5(Safety Recommendation P-09-2). NTSB also recommended initiating a program to evaluate pipeline operators’ public education programs, including pipeline operators’ self-evaluations of the effectiveness of their public education programs. Provide the National Transportation Safety Board with a timeline for implementation and completion of this evaluation. (Safety Recommendation P-09- 3). o Pacific Gas and Electric Company failure San Bruno, CA September 9, 2010. NTSB report PB2011-916501. NTSB recommended amending Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 of the Federal pipeline safety regulations so that manufacturing- and construction- related defects can only be considered stable if a gas pipeline has been subjected to a post-construction hydrostatic pressure test of at least 1.25 times the maximum allowable operating pressure. (Safety Recommendation P-11-15). NTSB recommended amending Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations § 192.619 to delete the grandfather clause and require that all gas transmission pipelines constructed before 1970 be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test that incorporates a spike test. (Safety Recommendation P-11-14). NTSB also recommended assessing every aspect of the operator’s integrity management program, paying particular attention to the areas identified in this investigation, and implement a revised program that includes, at a minimum, (1) a revised risk model to reflect the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s actual recent experience data on leaks, failures, and incidents; (2) consideration of all defect and leak data for the life of each pipeline, including its construction, in risk analysis for similar or related segments to ensure that all applicable threats are adequately addressed; (3) a revised risk analysis methodology to ensure that assessment methods are selected for each pipeline segment that address all applicable integrity threats, with particular emphasis on design/material and construction threats; and (4) an improved self-assessment that adequately measures whether the program is effectively assessing and evaluating the integrity of each covered pipeline segment. (Safety Recommendation P-11-29). • PHMSA has issued the following advisories, reports, and regulations: o Alert Notice advising pipeline operators who have pipe manufactured by ERW process of the occurrence of 12 hazardous liquid pipeline failures and of actions which operators may take to reduce the risks of similar failures. Alert Notice ALN- 89-01 (Mar. 8, 1989). PHMSA3 advised operators who have pipe manufactured by the ERW process of actions they may take to reduce the risk of pipeline failure. PHMSA explained that “[t]he continuing failure of ERW seams remains a matter of concern…Since the issuance of [the 1988] Alert Notice, [PHMSA] has data on 8 additional hazardous 3 This Alert Notice was issued by the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), PHMSA’s predecessor agency. For simplicity, this NOPSO will refer to the agency as PHMSA.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 6liquid pipeline failures and 1 on a gas transmission pipeline involving pipe seams manufactured prior to 1970 by the ERW process. Of the 8 additional hazardous liquid pipeline failures, 2 appear to be due to selective corrosion of the ERW seam. As stated in the 1988 Alert Notice (ALN-88-01), seams with selective corrosion occurring in an area of manufacturing defects may be particularly vulnerable to failure. However, the other failures appear to have resulted from flat growth of manufacturing defects in the ERW seam.” o “TTO Number 5 Integrity Management Program Delivery Order DTRS56-02-D- 70036 Low Frequency ERW and Lap Welded Longitudinal Seam Evaluation.” This report, commissioned by PHMSA, documents a review focused on evaluation of longitudinal seams on LF-ERW pipe and lap-welded pipe, particularly pipe manufactured before 1970, as well as DC-ERW pipe and EFW pipe. The report finds that “likely causes of seam failures that could necessitate a seam-integrity assessment are pressure cycle-induced fatigue and selective (grooving) corrosion of the bondline region of the seam. Four factors govern the possible growth of seam defects by pressure-cycle-induced fatigue: (1) the pressure cycles, (2) the presence of a family of initial flaws, (3) an environmentally affected crack-growth rate, and (4) the toughness of the pipe.” o 49 C.F.R § 195.4 Compatibility necessary for transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide. “No person may transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide unless the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide is chemically compatible with both the pipeline, including all components, and any other commodity that it may come into contact with while in the pipeline.” • Current assessment and continual evaluation methods do not address the threat of leaks on the LF-ERW long seam of the Pipeline. Current preventative and mitigative measures do not address the ongoing threat of leaks in the long seam. • History of Pipeline Compliance and Repair o April 6 and November 2, 2011: Two accidents on the Pipeline occurred because of failures of a long seam weld. Both accidents were determined to be caused by a “cold weld” in the longitudinal LF-ERW pipe seam. In both cases, metallurgical analysis concluded that the cold welds were original manufacturing defects in the pipe seam. o Summer of 2013: 10 pinhole leaks were discovered in the long seam welds.4 o September 2013: NOPV issued with a Compliance Order (CPF No. 4-2013-5019- NOPV) to perform an integrity assessment of the pipeline by a method prescribed 4 National Response Center report numbers: 1054340, 1058513, 1058754, 1058760, 1058762, 1058766, 1058771, 1058774, 1058777, 1058779.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 7in Appendix G of Chevron’s Pipeline Integrity Management Program Manual.5 Hydrostatic testing of the line was performed prior to the end of 2013. A spike test was performed to 1.39 MOP; however, the testing was limited to 80 percent SMYS. As a result of hydrostatic test, 41 repairs were made. In addition, there were two failures during the hydrostatic testing. One of the ruptures occurred during the spike test. o October 8, 2014: BPP purchases pipeline. o October 10, 2014: A failure occurs on the long seam. o October 20, 2014: Corrective Action Order (CAO) CPF No. 4-2014-5027H was issued. BPP took the following the actions as a result of the CAO:  BPP removed or replaced 27 Type A indications;  BPP removed or replaced 53 Type B indications;  BPP replaced 51 feet of pipeline with unknown grade; and  BPP ran TFI tool on four segments of the pipeline from December 2014 to May 2015. o January 5, 2016: CAO (CPF No. 4-2014-5027H) closed. • The table below shows the additional leak repairs since the 2014 CAO. BPP submitted no NRC or accident reports for these leaks. • The 15 locations with “Plidco Clamp” type of repair are similar to the leak at Pipeline Station 847 along the Sabine River in Cameron County, Louisiana Proposed Issuance of Safety Order 5 At the time of the failure, the pipeline was operated by Chevron Petrochemical Pipeline LLC (Chevron), pending a transition to BPP.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 8Section 60117(l) of Title 49, United States Code, provides for the issuance of a safety order, after reasonable notice and the opportunity for a hearing, requiring corrective measures, which may include physical inspection, testing, repair, or other action, as appropriate. The basis for making the determination that a pipeline facility has a condition or conditions that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment is set forth both in the above-referenced statute and 49 C.F.R. § 190.239, a copy of which is enclosed. In deciding whether to issue an order, PHMSA must consider the following, if relevant: (1) the characteristics of the pipe and other equipment used in the pipeline facility, including the age, manufacture, physical properties, and method of manufacturing, constructing, or assembling the equipment; (2) the nature of the material the pipeline facility transports, the corrosive and deteriorative qualities of the material, the sequence in which the material is transported, and the pressure required for transporting the material; (3) the aspects of the area in which the pipeline facility is located, including climatic and geologic conditions and soil characteristics; (4) the proximity of the area in which the hazardous liquid pipeline facility is located to environmentally sensitive areas; (5) the population density and population and growth patterns of the area in which the pipeline facility is located; (6) any recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board made under another law; (7) the likelihood that the condition will impair the serviceability of the pipeline; (8) the likelihood that the condition will worsen over time; and (9) the likelihood that the condition is present or could develop on other areas of the pipeline. After evaluating the foregoing preliminary findings of fact and considering the characteristics of the Pipeline, including the age of the pipe involved, the manufacturer, and the prior and ongoing failures of the pipeline; the hazardous nature of the product transported (ethylene); the uncertainty as to the root cause(s) of the failure; the existing and potential impacts to property and the environment; the susceptibility of pipelines manufactured before 1971 with LF-ERW longitudinal seams to failure; the failure to identify prior leaks with ILI tools; the ongoing nature of the leak and lack of monitoring; the pressure required for transporting such product; the characteristics of the geographical areas where the pipeline facility is located, including its proximity to HCAs, unusually sensitive areas, and highly populated areas; and the likelihood that the conditions could worsen or develop on other areas of the pipeline and potentially impact safety and serviceability, it appears that the Pipeline has a condition or conditions that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. The conditions described above require a comprehensive evaluation to identify and remediate integrity issues, mitigate the risk, and protect public safety, property, and the environment. Accordingly, PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order to notify Respondent of the proposed issuance of a safety order and to propose that Respondent take measures specified herein to address the potential risk.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 9Proposed Corrective Measures Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117(l) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.239, PHMSA proposes to issue to Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (BPP), a safety order incorporating the following remedial requirements with respect to the BP Pipeline: 1. 2. 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Notice, the following terms are defined as: (A) “Director” is the Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); (B) (C) “Effective Date” is the date a safety order is issued; “Affected Pipeline System” means the approximately 166.64 miles of the LF-ERW, 16-inch diameter Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline transporting liquid ethylene, originating in Port Neches, Texas, and ending in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and (D) “Leak Location” means the leak identified on June 10, 2024, at Pipeline Station 847 along the Sabine River in Cameron County, Louisiana, which was reported to the NRC on June 14, 2024. BPP must remove the failed section of pipe for metallurgical and failure analysis by an independent third party. BPP shall then permanently repair the pipe at the Leak Location at Station 847 no less than 30 days from the Effective Date. BPP must submit a repair plan for approval to the Director prior to repair and restart of the affected pipeline section. BPP commission a root cause failure analysis (RCFA) by an independent third party of the Leak Location. The RCFA shall also review BPP’s operating procedures and conduct an Safety Management System (SMS) gap analysis in accordance with "American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1173 - Pipeline Safety Management Systems". This gap analysis should focus on why these other locations were not reported as an accident in accordance with CFR Part 195. BPP shall submit a preliminary report of this RCFA to the Director within 90 days of the Effective Date and the final report within 120 days of the Effective Date. 4. BPP must submit, within 60 days of the Effective Date, a Remedial Work Plan (RWP) for the evaluation of the entire Affected Pipeline System and repair of the remaining 15 PLIDCO repair locations6 and any additional anomalies found to the Director for approval. The RWP must include: (A) The performance of additional field testing, inspections, and evaluations to determine whether and to what extent the conditions described in this Notice are present elsewhere on the Affected Pipeline System. The results of the inspections, field excavations, and evaluations must be made submitted to the Director. (B) The performance of repairs or other corrective measures that fully remediate the identified risk condition(s). The RWP must include provisions for continuing long- 6 See Table “BP-100 Pipeline Leaks and Repairs 2016-2024,” above at page 5.#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 10term periodic testing and integrity verification measures to ensure the ongoing safe operation of the pipeline, considering the results of the analyses, inspections, and corrective measures undertaken pursuant to the safety order; and (C) A proposed schedule for completion of the actions required by paragraphs (A) and (B) of this Item. 5. BPP must revise its RWP as necessary to incorporate new information obtained during the evaluations and associated remedial activities and submit any such plan revisions to the Director for prior approval within 15 days after the revision. The Director may approve plan elements incrementally. The RWP shall become incorporated into the safety order. 6. Respondent must implement the RWP as they are approved by the Director, including any revisions to the plan. 7. BPP must submit quarterly reports to the Director that: (1) include available data and results of the testing and evaluations required by the safety order; and (2) describe the progress of the repairs and other remedial actions being undertaken. 8. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of the terms of the safety order upon a written request timely submitted demonstrating good cause for an extension. 9. Respondent may appeal any decision of the Director to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. Decisions of the Associate Administrator shall be final. 10. It is requested that BPP maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Safety Order and submit the total to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. PHMSA believes that the above Proposed Corrective Measures will provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided for in Part 195 and will ensure that BPP performs inspections, corrective actions, and mitigation actions necessary to identify any additional leaks and other safety issues that may be presently affecting the Affected Pipeline System, and to ensure the integrity and safety of the Pipeline. The actions proposed by this Notice of Proposed Safety Order are in addition to and do not waive any requirements that apply to Respondent’s pipeline system under 49 C.F.R. Parts 190 through 199, under any other order issued to Respondent under authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq., or under any other provision of Federal or state law. After receiving and analyzing additional data in the course of this proceeding and implementation of the work plan, PHMSA may identify other safety measures that need to be taken. In that event,#

32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf, page 11Respondent will be notified of any proposed additional measures and, if necessary, amendments to the work plan or safety order. Response to this Notice In accordance with § 190.239, BPP has 30 days following receipt of this Notice to submit a written response to the official who issued the Notice. If BPP does not respond within 30 days, this constitutes a waiver of BPP’s right to contest this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to BPP and to issue a Safety Order. In BPP’s response, BPP may notify that official that BPP intends to comply with the terms of the Notice as proposed, or BPP may request that an informal consultation be scheduled (BPP will also have the opportunity to request an administrative hearing before a safety order is issued). Informal consultation provides BPP with the opportunity to explain the circumstances associated with the risk conditions alleged in the notice and, as appropriate, to present a proposal for a work plan or other remedial measures, without prejudice to BPP’s position in any subsequent hearing. If BPP and PHMSA agree within 30 days of informal consultation on a plan and schedule for you to address each identified risk condition, we may enter into a written consent agreement (PHMSA would then issue an administrative consent order incorporating the terms of the agreement). If a consent agreement is not reached, or if BPP has elected not to request informal consultation, BPP may request an administrative hearing in writing within 30 days following receipt of the Notice or within 10 days following the conclusion of an informal consultation that did not result in a consent agreement, as applicable. Following a hearing, if the Associate Administrator finds the facility to have a condition that poses a pipeline integrity risk to the public, property, or the environment in accordance with § 190.239, the Associate Administrator may issue a safety order. Be advised that all material BPP submits in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If BPP believes that any portion of its responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document BPP must provide a second copy of the document with the portions it believes qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why BPP believes the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). In BPP’s correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2024-081-NOPSO and for each document it submits, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. ___________________________________ __________________ Gregory A. Ochs Date Issued Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#