{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024081NOPSO","title":"BOARDWALK PETROCHEMICAL PIPELINE, LLC — Safety Order","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2024-12-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN safety order.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024081nopso.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024081nopso.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024081nopso","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024081NOPSO","body":"Safety Order involving BOARDWALK PETROCHEMICAL PIPELINE, LLC. The dataset does not identify a cited regulation for this case. The case was opened on 2024-12-18 and is reported as open. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024081NOPSO/32024081NOPSO_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07072025_(24-314720).pdf\n\n32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024081NOPSO/32024081NOPSO_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf\n\n32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024081NOPSO/32024081NOPSO_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_12182024_(24-314720).pdf\n\n32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024081NOPSO/32024081NOPSO_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf\n\n32024081NOPSO_Consent Agreement and Order_07072025_(24-314720)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: scott.hallam@bwpipelines.com;\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nMr. Scott Hallam\nPresident & CEO\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77036\nCPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Boardwalk\nPetrochemical Pipeline, LLC, which was executed on June 20, 2025. Service of the Consent Order\nand Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement\ncc: David Barrett, Acting Region Director, PHMSA Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nSusan Olenchuk, Counsel, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, sam@vnf.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letter dated December 18, 2024, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) to\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (BPP or Respondent). In accordance with 49 CFR\n§ 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions exist on BPP’s ethylene pipeline system in\nLouisiana and Texas that pose an integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment.\nThe Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain corrective measures to remedy the alleged\nconditions and ensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the\npotential risk.\nIn response to the Notice, Respondent requested an informal consultation, whereupon the parties\nengaged in discussions. As a result of those discussions, the Parties have agreed to a Consent\nAgreement that settles all the allegations in the Notice.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nConsent Order issued pursuant to § 190.219. BPP is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of\nthe Consent Agreement pursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to\ncomply with this Consent Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate\nrelief in a district court of the United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 CFR § 190.5.\n______________________ ______________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nOn June 10, 2024, Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (“Boardwalk” or Respondent)\nlearned from a third party there was a leak on its pipeline system that transports liquid ethylene\nfrom Port Neches, Texas, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The pipeline system is approximately\n166.64 miles long and consists of 16-inch diameter, low frequency electric resistance weld (LF-\nERW) pipeline. On June 14, 2024, Boardwalk filed a report with the National Response Center\n(NRC). The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, initiated a safety\ninspection on June 14, 2024.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated December 18, 2024, a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 CFR § 190.239, the Notice alleged that conditions exist on Respondent’s pipeline system\nthat pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. The Notice also\nproposed that Boardwalk take certain corrective measures to remedy the alleged conditions and\nensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the alleged integrity\nrisk.\nOn January 16, 2025, Boardwalk responded to the Notice by submitting a written response and\nrequest for an informal consultation under 49 CFR § 190.239(b)(2). An informal consultation\nwas held on February 25, 2025.\nAs a result of the informal consultations, PHMSA and Respondent (the Parties) agree that\nsettlement of this proceeding by entry into this Consent Agreement (Agreement) is the most\nappropriate means of resolving the issues raised in the Notice, will avoid further administrative\nproceedings or litigation, and is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR §\n190.239(b)(2), without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, and upon consent and agreement,\nthe Parties agree to the following terms and conditions.\n\n\n\nI. General Provisions\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to the\nNotice, Respondent and its referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of\nthe Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and\nadministrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent\nacknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and\nthat the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §\n60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.\nRespondent agrees, for purposes of this Agreement, to address the integrity risks identified\nin the Notice by completing the actions specified in Section II of this agreement\n(Corrective Measures) and to abide by the terms of this Agreement.\nAfter Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative\nwill present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the\nAssociate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative\norder (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this\nAgreement constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator.\nOnce accepted, the Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the\nterms of this Agreement.\nRespondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any further\nprocedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of the Notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this\nAgreement, including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except\nfor the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth herein.\nThis Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its officers,\ndirectors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons\notherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any\nincorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and\nagents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\nFor all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline system\nreferenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice\nof the transfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\nThis Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this\nAgreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or\nunderstandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this\nAgreement, except that the terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the\nNotice.\n\n\n\n8. 9. 10. 11. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to comply\nwith all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,\net seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement\nalters PHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's\nauthority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal\npipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision\nof Federal or State law.\nThis Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations\nthat are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit, or\na modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nRespondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all\napplicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\nThis Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third party\nnot party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any\ninjuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent\nor its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement.\nRespondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers,\nemployees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any\nacts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by\nthis Agreement.\nThis Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or regulation\nand may not be used in any civil or administrative proceeding of any kind as evidence or\nproof of any fact, fault, or liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule,\nregulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this\nAgreement or in future PHMSA enforcement actions.\nII. Corrective Measures:\n12. For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms are defined as:\na. b. c. d. “Director” is the Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);\n“Effective Date” is the date on which the Consent Order is issued by the\nAssociate Administrator incorporating the terms of this Agreement;\n“Affected Pipeline System” means the approximately 166.64 miles of the LF-\nERW, 16-inch diameter Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline transporting liquid\nethylene, originating in Port Neches, Texas, and ending in Baton Rouge,\nLouisiana; and\n“Leak Location” means the leak identified on June 10, 2024 at Pipeline Station\n847+76 along the Sabine River in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, which was reported\nto the NRC on June 14, 2024.\n\n\n\n13. 14. 15. 16. 17. e. “Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps” means mechanical bolt-on leak clamps existing\non the Affected Pipeline System on the Effective Date of this Agreement.\nBoardwalk has completed a permanent repair of the pipe at the Leak Location at Station\n847+76 by removing and replacing the section of pipe experiencing the leak, along with\nthe bolt-on leak clamp manufactured by PLIDCO that had been installed in 2018 to repair\na pinhole leak in the seam of the pipe. The removed section of pipe also contained a non-\nleaking PLIDCO bolt-on leak clamp. Although PLIDCO’s website states that “[f]or\npermanent repair, the fitting can be welded to the pipeline while it is under flow,”\nwelding on an ethylene pipeline presents significant safety hazards. Therefore, none of\nthe clamps removed from the Leak Location had been longitudinally or circumferentially\nwelded to the pipeline; nor had the studs been seal-welded. PLIDCO and PHMSA were\npresent in the field when the leaking clamp was removed and were present in the\nlaboratory during testing of the clamps and clamp seals.\nBoardwalk sent the removed section of pipe and the PLIDCO clamps to a third party for\nmetallurgical and laboratory analysis. The third party submitted a preliminary copy of\nthe metallurgical report to the Director and to Boardwalk. The third party provided\nBoardwalk and the Director a finalized copy of the metallurgical report and Root Cause\nAnalysis (RCA) on April 24, 2025.\nThe RCA described various versions of PLIDCO’s clamp installation instructions that\nhave existed since 2011 and found that the PLIDCO installation instructions likely used\nto install the clamp at the Leak Location in 2018 did not specify the maximum size of the\ngap allowed between the clamp’s two side bars. The RCA stated that an uneven gap\nexisted between the side bars and that PLIDCO’s installation instructions for side bar gap\ntolerances were too ambiguous at the time of installation. The RCA concluded that both\nof these factors contributed to the eventual leak in the PLIDCO clamp. The RCA stated\nthat, since 2018, PLIDCO has revised its clamp installation instructions several times and\nnow clearly specifies the maximum allowable size of the side bar gap. The RCA\nrecommends that Boardwalk consider performing instrumented leakage surveys along the\nAffected Pipeline System where remaining PLIDCO clamps (installed between 2016 and\n2019) are located. The RCA recommended that the surveys span 50 feet on either side of\nthe individual PLIDCO clamp locations and be conducted three times each calendar year\nat intervals not to exceed five months.\nUpon issuance of the Consent Order, Respondent agrees to perform the Corrective\nMeasures set forth below.\nBased on the findings of the RCA, Boardwalk shall, within 90 days of the Effective Date,\nrevise its operating procedures to state that, when installing a bolt-on leak clamp,\nBoardwalk shall use the manufacturer’s most current specifications and installation\ninstructions for the clamp to be installed. In addition, Boardwalk shall incorporate, if it\nhas not already done so, an Operator Qualification (OQ) task specific to the installation\nof pressure containing bolt-on clamps that Boardwalk considers to be a repair method,\n\n\n\nwithin 90 days of the Effective Date. Boardwalk shall provide a copy of the revised\nprocedures and OQ task to the Director for review and approval within 90 days of the\nEffective Date.\n18. Clamp Remedial Work Plan.\na. Boardwalk shall submit to the Director for approval, within 30 days of the Effective\nDate, a Clamp Remedial Work Plan (CRWP) for monitoring of the Affected\nPipeline System and the repair of any leaking bolt-on clamp.\ni. ii. iii. iv. v. The CRWP must identify and provide to the Director a list of all Existing\nBolt-On Leak Clamps and include available data on the installation date,\nclamp manufacturer, and the type of flaw they were applied to (e.g. leaking\npipe, non-leaking seam feature, etc.).\nBoardwalk shall increase the frequency of monitoring for leaks to monthly\nat the locations of all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps using the instrumented\nleak detection equipment that PHMSA previously approved in CPF No. 3-\n2023-020-NOPV. Boardwalk shall submit the monthly monitoring results\nto the Director quarterly, beginning 90 days after the Effective Date.\nIf a bolt-on clamp is found to be leaking on the pipeline, Boardwalk will\nsecure the area and schedule a repair that will be performed as soon as\nBoardwalk obtains any required permits and workspaces. The repair will be\nperformed in a manner consistent with applicable Part 195 regulations in\neffect at the time of the repair. Boardwalk will notify the Director of the\nleak and provide monthly status reports until the leak is repaired.\nIf Boardwalk removes a block valve segment from service on the Affected\nPipeline System for maintenance, plant outage, or for any other reason,\nBoardwalk will voluntarily remove all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps that\nare located in that block valve segment and replace them in a manner\nconsistent with applicable Part 195 regulations in effect at the time of the\nremoval and replacement. Boardwalk will provide advance notification to\nthe Director of any plans to remove Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps.\nBoardwalk is not required to remove any non-leaking PLIDCO clamps that\nmay be installed on the Affected Pipeline System after the Effective Date of\nthis Agreement. Any such PLIDCO clamps installed after the Effective\nDate must be installed in accordance with the revised procedures and OQ\ntask specified in paragraph 17.\nWhenever an Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamp is replaced, Boardwalk shall\nnotify the Director of the repair method used not later than 30 days after the\nreplacement.\n\n\n\nb. c. Boardwalk must revise its CRWP as necessary to incorporate new information\nobtained as a result of performing leak monitoring, performing pipeline repairs, or\nidentifying a previously unidentified bolt-on clamp that was installed before the\nEffective Date of this Agreement. Boardwalk shall submit any such plan revisions\nto the Director for approval within 15 days after making the revision.\nThe CRWP shall remain in effect until all Existing Bolt-On Leak Clamps have been\nremoved.\n19. Boardwalk will develop a written procedure to calculate the volume released from leaks\non the Affected Pipeline System to the Director for approval within 90 days of the\nEffective Date. The computations should address all types of leaks on the pipeline, to\ninclude minor leaks, cracks, etc.\n20. Extensions of Time. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance with\nany of the terms of the Agreement upon a written request timely submitted demonstrating\ngood cause for the extension. The Director shall respond in writing to any such request.\nIII. Review and Approval Process:\n21. With respect to any submission under Section II (Corrective Measures) of this Agreement\nthat requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or in\npart, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specified, reasonable conditions; (c)\ndisapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the foregoing.\nIf the Director approves, approves in part, or approves with conditions, Respondent will\ntake all actions as approved by the Director, subject to Respondent’s right to invoke the\ndispute resolution procedures with respect to any conditions the Director identifies. If the\nDirector disapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will provide\nRespondent a written notice of the deficiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies\nwithin the time specified by the Director and resubmit it for approval.\nIV. Dispute Resolution:\n22. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising\nunder this Agreement, including any decision of the Director under the terms of Section\nII (Corrective Measures). If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally\nresolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to\nthe Director, Respondent may submit a written request for a determination resolving the\ndispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. Such request must be made\nin writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Central Region, and to the\nAssociate Administrator, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for\ninformal resolution referenced in this paragraph. Along with its request, Respondent\nmust provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes is\nrelevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate Administrator under this paragraph\nwill constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s\nconsideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or\n\n\n\ntimeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the\npendency of the dispute resolution process.\nV. Enforcement:\n23. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA\nunder 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 190, including administrative civil\npenalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $272,926 per violation for each day the\nviolation continues and referral of the case to the Attorney General for judicial\nenforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not complying with the terms of\nthis Agreement in accordance with the determinations made by the Director, or in\naccordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator if resolved pursuant to the\nDispute Resolution process herein. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted\nannually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223. All work plans and associated schedules\nset forth or referenced in Section II (Corrective Measures) are automatically incorporated\ninto this Agreement and are enforceable in the same manner.\nVI. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure:\n24. Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, Respondent agrees to maintain records\ndemonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement for a period of at least\nfive (5) years following completion of all work to be performed, unless a longer period of\ntime is required pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 190-199. For any reports, plans, or other\ndeliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement, Respondent\nmay assert a claim of business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release\nof information by PHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be\nsubmitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7.\nRespondent must mark the claim of confidentiality in writing on each page, and include a\nstatement specifying the grounds for each claim of confidentiality. PHMSA determines\nrelease of any information submitted pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49\nCFR Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and PHMSA policies,\nand other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.\nVII. Modification:\n25. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties. Such\nmodifications must be in writing and signed by both parties.\nVIII. Termination:\n26. This Agreement will remain in effect until the Corrective Measures in Section II are\nsatisfied, as determined by the Director. The Agreement shall not terminate until the\nDirector confirms, in writing, that the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this\nparagraph. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any of the\nobligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.\n\n\n\nIX. Ratification:\n27. 28. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into\nthe terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to\nthis document.\nThe Parties hereby agree to all findings, conditions, and terms of this Agreement.\n[Signature Lines on Following Page]\n\n\n\nFor Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipelines, LLC:\n___________________________________\n________________________\nDate\nFor PHMSA:\n________________________________________\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\n\n32024081NOPSO_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_12182024_(24-314720)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Scott.Hallam@bwpipelines.com;\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nDecember 18, 2024\nMr. Scott Hallam\nPresident & CEO\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC\n9 Greenway Plaza Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77036\nCPF 3-2024-081-NOPSO\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nEnclosed is a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) issued in the above-referenced case. The\nNotice proposes that Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (BPP) take certain measures with\nrespect to its ethylene pipeline system in Louisiana and Texas to ensure pipeline safety. Your\noptions for responding are set forth in the Notice. Your receipt of the Notice constitutes service\nof that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nWe look forward to a successful resolution to ensure pipeline safety. Please direct any questions\non this matter to me at 816-308-2783.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Notice of Proposed Safety Order\nRECEIPT CONFIRMATION REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nCentral Region\nKansas City, MO 64106\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2024-081-NOPSO\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nNOTICE OF PROPOSED SAFETY ORDER\nBackground and Purpose\nPursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) has initiated an investigation of the safety of Boardwalk\nPetrochemical Pipeline, LLC’s (BPP or Respondent) ethylene pipeline system in Louisiana and\nTexas.\nAs a result of the investigation, it appears that conditions exist on your pipeline facilities that pose\na pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117(l), PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order, notifying you of the preliminary\nfindings of the investigation, and proposing that you take measures to ensure that the public,\nproperty, and the environment are protected from the potential risk.\nPreliminary Findings\n• The affected pipeline is the approximately 166.64 miles long, 16-inch diameter, low-\nfrequency electric resistance weld (LF-ERW) Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline (the\nPipeline or BP Pipeline) transporting liquid ethylene, which is a highly volatile liquid\n(HVL), originating in Port Neches, Texas, and ending in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.\n• A leak was discovered on the Pipeline by Colonial Pipeline (Colonial) personnel while\nperforming maintenance work on its pipeline, which is adjacent to the BP Pipeline, on June\n10, 2024. Colonial determined that the leak was not on its pipeline and notified BPP\npersonnel. On June 14, 2024, BPP determined that its pipeline was leaking and filed a\nreport with the NRC.1 The leak was presumed to be caused by a PLIDCO type clamp\n1 See NRC Report #1402039.\n\n\n\nfailure located at Pipeline Station 847 along the Sabine River in Cameron County,\nLouisiana.2\n• The leak is being monitored by BPP. The leak is being aerial patrolled every two weeks\nand BPP is preforming a ground non-instrumented leak survey on a bi-monthly basis.\nAdditionally, an instrumented leak detection is being performed quarterly.\n• The leak referenced above at Pipeline Station 847 along the Sabine River in Cameron\nCounty, Louisiana is unrepaired. The stability, type, and nature of the defect is unknown\ndue to the operator not removing the PLIDCO clamp and backfilling the leak. The Pipeline\nis still operating, and no pressure reduction has been taken.\n• The Pipeline was manufactured by Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company in 1953 and has\na LF-ERW, longitudinal pipe seam. The Pipeline is 16 inches in diameter, grade X52, with\na wall thickness of 0.312 inches. The coating is coal tar enamel. Pre-1971 LF-ERW pipe\nis well known to have failures in the long seam. BPP’s 2023 Annual Report to PHMSA\nindicates that 166.64 out of 177.9 miles of the pipeline is LF-ERW pipe.\n• Pipelines manufactured before 1971 with LF-ERW longitudinal seams are susceptible to\nfailures due to multiple deficiencies created by the welding process including: cold welds,\nhook cracks that are enlarged by fatigue, other manufacturing defects enlarged by fatigue,\nselective seam weld corrosion, hydrogen stress cracking, sulfide stress cracking, and stress\ncorrosion cracking.\n• The Pipeline has had 18 leaks due to use of LF-ERW pipe from 2016 to present, not\nincluding the current leak. Previous integrity assessment and continual evaluation methods\nhave proven ineffective to detect these leaks. These leaks were discovered by unknown\nmethods that were not indicated by BPP’s inline inspection (ILI) tool. Sixteen of these\nleaks were repaired with PLIDCO type clamps. The remaining two were cut out and\nreplaced with new pipe.\n• In 2018, BPP installed a PLIDCO type clamp to repair a failure of the LF-ERW long seam.\n• BPP has stated that a PLIDCO type clamp used to repair the 2018 failure did not function\nas intended. This has not been confirmed as the root cause of the current failure.\n• BPP did not report the 18 leaks discovered between 2016 and 2024 to the National\nResponse Center (NRC) as required by 49 C.F.R § 195.52, nor was an accident report filed\nas required by § 195.54.\n• The in-service failure of the LF-ERW longitudinal seam on the BP Pipeline is a condition\nposing a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, and the environment. Due to its\nproximity to a navigable waterway, the leak could affect a high consequence area (HCA),\nas defined in § 195.450.\n2 PLIDCO is a manufacturer of pipeline leak repair and maintenance fittings.\n\n\n\n• The Pipeline transports ethylene, which is a petrochemical HVL used in the manufacture\nof plastics and related products. The Pipeline has a maximum operating pressure of 1336\npounds per square inch (psi). Ethylene is a very flammable product and extreme caution\nmust be used while performing repairs on the pipeline.\n• The Pipeline traverses an area dominated by wetlands and swamps along the Gulf Coast\ncoastal plains. The climate is humid subtropical. The geology is unconsolidated,\nredeposited sands and clays to silty sediments of aeolian and alluvial origin.\n• The Pipeline traverses the Lower Neches Water Management of Texas and the Sabine\nNational Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. There are 33.89 miles of Unusually Sensitive Areas\n(USA), which include drinking water and ecological resources, according to BPP’s 2023\nAnnual Report.\n• The Pipeline traverses several highly populated areas. These include the cities of Port\nNeches and Orange in Texas. These areas are industrial in character and stable in\npopulation growth. It also traverses the cities of Lake Charles, Opelousas, and Baton Rouge\nin Louisiana. The Pipeline generally traverses the southern side of these cities, and these\nareas are characterized by rapid growth of commercial and residential buildings. BPP’s\n2023 Annual Report states that there are 38.59 miles of High Population and Other\npopulation areas.\n• Three NTSB recommendations have been issued related to ERW pipe or manufacturing\ndefects:\no Williams pipeline failure Mounds View, MN July 8, 1986. NTSB report PB87-\n916502.\nNTSB recommended that PHMSA obtain sufficient data on LF-ERW pipe and\ndetermine if its continued use presents an unreasonable hazard to public safety and\ntake appropriate regulatory action for identified deficiencies. (Class II, Priority\nAction) (Safety Recommendation P-87-26).\no Dixie Pipeline failure of Propane pipeline Carmichael, MS November 1, 2007.\nNTSB Report PB2009-916501.\nNTSB recommended conducting a comprehensive study to identify actions that can\nbe implemented by pipeline operators to eliminate catastrophic longitudinal seam\nfailures in electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe; at a minimum, the study should\ninclude assessments of the effectiveness and effects of in-line inspection tools,\nhydrostatic pressure tests, and spike pressure tests; pipe material strength\ncharacteristics and failure mechanisms; the effects of aging on ERW pipelines;\noperational factors; and data collection and predictive analysis. (Safety\nRecommendation P-09-1). Based on the results of the study requested in Safety\nRecommendation P-09-1, NTSB recommended implementing the actions needed.\n\n\n\n(Safety Recommendation P-09-2). NTSB also recommended initiating a program\nto evaluate pipeline operators’ public education programs, including pipeline\noperators’ self-evaluations of the effectiveness of their public education programs.\nProvide the National Transportation Safety Board with a timeline for\nimplementation and completion of this evaluation. (Safety Recommendation P-09-\n3).\no Pacific Gas and Electric Company failure San Bruno, CA September 9, 2010.\nNTSB report PB2011-916501.\nNTSB recommended amending Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 of\nthe Federal pipeline safety regulations so that manufacturing- and construction-\nrelated defects can only be considered stable if a gas pipeline has been subjected to\na post-construction hydrostatic pressure test of at least 1.25 times the maximum\nallowable operating pressure. (Safety Recommendation P-11-15). NTSB\nrecommended amending Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations § 192.619 to delete\nthe grandfather clause and require that all gas transmission pipelines constructed\nbefore 1970 be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test that incorporates a spike test.\n(Safety Recommendation P-11-14). NTSB also recommended assessing every\naspect of the operator’s integrity management program, paying particular attention\nto the areas identified in this investigation, and implement a revised program that\nincludes, at a minimum, (1) a revised risk model to reflect the Pacific Gas and\nElectric Company’s actual recent experience data on leaks, failures, and incidents;\n(2) consideration of all defect and leak data for the life of each pipeline, including\nits construction, in risk analysis for similar or related segments to ensure that all\napplicable threats are adequately addressed; (3) a revised risk analysis methodology\nto ensure that assessment methods are selected for each pipeline segment that\naddress all applicable integrity threats, with particular emphasis on design/material\nand construction threats; and (4) an improved self-assessment that adequately\nmeasures whether the program is effectively assessing and evaluating the integrity\nof each covered pipeline segment. (Safety Recommendation P-11-29).\n• PHMSA has issued the following advisories, reports, and regulations:\no Alert Notice advising pipeline operators who have pipe manufactured by ERW\nprocess of the occurrence of 12 hazardous liquid pipeline failures and of actions\nwhich operators may take to reduce the risks of similar failures. Alert Notice ALN-\n89-01 (Mar. 8, 1989).\nPHMSA3 advised operators who have pipe manufactured by the ERW process of\nactions they may take to reduce the risk of pipeline failure. PHMSA explained that\n“[t]he continuing failure of ERW seams remains a matter of concern…Since the\nissuance of [the 1988] Alert Notice, [PHMSA] has data on 8 additional hazardous\n3 This Alert Notice was issued by the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),\nPHMSA’s predecessor agency. For simplicity, this NOPSO will refer to the agency as PHMSA.\n\n\n\nliquid pipeline failures and 1 on a gas transmission pipeline involving pipe seams\nmanufactured prior to 1970 by the ERW process. Of the 8 additional hazardous\nliquid pipeline failures, 2 appear to be due to selective corrosion of the ERW seam.\nAs stated in the 1988 Alert Notice (ALN-88-01), seams with selective corrosion\noccurring in an area of manufacturing defects may be particularly vulnerable to\nfailure. However, the other failures appear to have resulted from flat growth of\nmanufacturing defects in the ERW seam.”\no “TTO Number 5 Integrity Management Program Delivery Order DTRS56-02-D-\n70036 Low Frequency ERW and Lap Welded Longitudinal Seam Evaluation.”\nThis report, commissioned by PHMSA, documents a review focused on\nevaluation of longitudinal seams on LF-ERW pipe and lap-welded pipe,\nparticularly pipe manufactured before 1970, as well as DC-ERW pipe and EFW\npipe. The report finds that “likely causes of seam failures that could necessitate a\nseam-integrity assessment are pressure cycle-induced fatigue and selective\n(grooving) corrosion of the bondline region of the seam. Four factors govern the\npossible growth of seam defects by pressure-cycle-induced fatigue: (1) the\npressure cycles, (2) the presence of a family of initial flaws, (3) an\nenvironmentally affected crack-growth rate, and (4) the toughness of the pipe.”\no 49 C.F.R § 195.4 Compatibility necessary for transportation of hazardous liquids\nor carbon dioxide.\n“No person may transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide unless the\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide is chemically compatible with both the pipeline,\nincluding all components, and any other commodity that it may come into contact\nwith while in the pipeline.”\n• Current assessment and continual evaluation methods do not address the threat of leaks on\nthe LF-ERW long seam of the Pipeline. Current preventative and mitigative measures do\nnot address the ongoing threat of leaks in the long seam.\n• History of Pipeline Compliance and Repair\no April 6 and November 2, 2011: Two accidents on the Pipeline occurred because of\nfailures of a long seam weld. Both accidents were determined to be caused by a\n“cold weld” in the longitudinal LF-ERW pipe seam. In both cases, metallurgical\nanalysis concluded that the cold welds were original manufacturing defects in the\npipe seam.\no Summer of 2013: 10 pinhole leaks were discovered in the long seam welds.4\no September 2013: NOPV issued with a Compliance Order (CPF No. 4-2013-5019-\nNOPV) to perform an integrity assessment of the pipeline by a method prescribed\n4 National Response Center report numbers: 1054340, 1058513, 1058754, 1058760, 1058762,\n1058766, 1058771, 1058774, 1058777, 1058779.\n\n\n\nin Appendix G of Chevron’s Pipeline Integrity Management Program Manual.5\nHydrostatic testing of the line was performed prior to the end of 2013. A spike test\nwas performed to 1.39 MOP; however, the testing was limited to 80 percent SMYS.\nAs a result of hydrostatic test, 41 repairs were made. In addition, there were two\nfailures during the hydrostatic testing. One of the ruptures occurred during the spike\ntest.\no October 8, 2014: BPP purchases pipeline.\no October 10, 2014: A failure occurs on the long seam.\no October 20, 2014: Corrective Action Order (CAO) CPF No. 4-2014-5027H was\nissued. BPP took the following the actions as a result of the CAO:\n BPP removed or replaced 27 Type A indications;\n BPP removed or replaced 53 Type B indications;\n BPP replaced 51 feet of pipeline with unknown grade; and\n BPP ran TFI tool on four segments of the pipeline from December 2014 to\nMay 2015.\no January 5, 2016: CAO (CPF No. 4-2014-5027H) closed.\n• The table below shows the additional leak repairs since the 2014 CAO. BPP submitted no\nNRC or accident reports for these leaks.\n• The 15 locations with “Plidco Clamp” type of repair are sim","truncated":true,"body_characters":52113}