# GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 42021015NOPV
- **title:** GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2021-11-02
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.179(b)(1), 192.605(a), 192.805(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021015nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021015nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021015nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42021015NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.179(b)(1),  192.605(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2021-11-02 and is reported as closed as of 2023-05-08. Proposed civil penalty: $38,000. Assessed civil penalty: $38,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

42021015NOPV_Closure Letter_05082023_(20-171965).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05082023_(20-171965).pdf

42021015NOPV_Closure Letter_05082023_(20-171965)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05082023_(20-171965)_text.pdf

42021015NOPV_Final Order_12192022_(20-171965).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_Final%20Order_12192022_(20-171965).pdf

42021015NOPV_Final Order_12192022_(20-171965)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_Final%20Order_12192022_(20-171965)_text.pdf

42021015NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_12142021_(20-171965).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12142021_(20-171965).pdf

42021015NOPV_PCO PCP_11022021_(20-171965).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_PCO%20PCP_11022021_(20-171965).pdf

42021015NOPV_PCO PCP_11022021_(20-171965)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021015NOPV/42021015NOPV_PCO%20PCP_11022021_(20-171965)_text.pdf

42021015NOPV_Final Order_12192022_(20-171965)_text.pdf

December 19, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: stan.horton@bwpipelines.com
Mr. Stanley Horton
President and Chief Executive Officer
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77046
Re: CPF No. 4-2021-015-NOPV
Dear Mr. Horton:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one Item
and its associated compliance order, makes a finding of violation as to the remaining Item,
withdraws the associated compliance order item, and assesses a civil penalty of $38,000 to Gulf
South Pipeline Company, LLC. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order.
When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the
Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt
as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Tony G. Rizk, P.E., Vice President, Technical Services, Boardwalk Pipelines
Partners, LP, tony.rizk@bwpipelines.com
Ms. Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, Boardwalk Pipelines Partners, LP,
tina.baker@bwpipelines.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
______________________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2021-015-NOPV
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From November 20, 2019, through October 25, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the newly constructed Willis Lateral Pipeline of Gulf South
Pipeline Company, LLC (Gulf South or Respondent), a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners, LP. The Willis Lateral Pipeline traverses from San Jacinto County to Montgomery
County, Texas.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated November 2, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Gulf South committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. part 192,
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $38,000 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included
an additional two warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to
correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action
On November 17, 2021, Gulf South requested an extension of time to respond to the Notice.
Respondent’s request was granted. Gulf South responded to the Notice by letter dated December
14, 2021 (Response). Respondent contested two of the allegations, offered additional
information in response to the Notice, requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced, and
asked that the proposed compliance order (PCO) for Item 3 be withdrawn and the PCO for Item
4 be amended if not withdrawn. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived
its right to one.



FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. part 192, as follows:
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.179(b)(1), which states:
§ 192.179 Transmission line valves.
(a) ….
(b) Each sectionalizing block valve on a transmission line, other than
offshore segments, must comply with the following:
(1) The valve and the operating device to open or close the valve must
be readily accessible and protected from tampering and damage.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.179(b)(1) by failing to protect
valves from tampering and damage at two separate valve site locations: the Willis Lateral Line
Origination Station and the Willis Lateral Line Terminus Station. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that PHMSA found the main gate to the Willis Lateral Line Origination Station did not
have locks. The Notice also alleged that PHMSA identified an “emergency valve” at the Willis
Lateral Line Terminus Station that was accessible by an opening in the fencing surrounding the
interconnect pipeline area.
In its Response, Respondent argued that Item 3 must be withdrawn because “OPS fail[ed] to
establish that the valves and the operating devices to open or close the valves are not protected
from tampering and damage.
”1 Respondent contended that the Origination Station and the
Terminus Station are both at least partially enclosed by perimeter fencing and that the valves
within those enclosures were secured with chains and locks. Respondent further contented that
“PHMSA has previously found that locks provide protection from tampering.”2 Respondent also
argued that “OPS also [did] not explain why the lack of a lock on the main gate or a hole in the
fencing undermines the stated purpose of fencing to alert others to the presence of the valves at
the stations so as to prevent damage.”3
After considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I withdraw the allegation of
violation. PHMSA has previously found that valves secured by chains with locks provide
sufficient protection from tampering.4 In this case, the evidence shows that the valves at both
stations were secured by chains with locks. There is no evidence that these measures failed to
provide sufficient protection from tampering. The evidence also shows that there was fencing
around the stations, but that the gates were not locked and there were gaps in the fencing. While
the evidence shows the fences were not fully secure, it does not show how the fencing was not
1 Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC, CPF No. 4-2021-015-NOPV Written Response to Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order, dated December 14, 2021 (hereinafter
“Response”) (on file with PHMSA), at 6.
2 Response, supra, at 6.
3 Id.
4 See Honeoye Storage Corp., Warning Letter, CPF No. 1-2012-0002W, dated April 2, 2011; Williams Gas Pipeline
Co., LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2010-1002, dated August 23, 2010; Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Decision on
Petition for Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-2000-5006, dated June 23, 2004.



sufficient to protect the valves from damage. Accordingly, I withdraw this allegation of
violation.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states:
§ 192.805(b) Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) ….
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through
evaluation that individuals performing a covered task on its pipeline are qualified. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Gulf South failed to ensure that Entergy Texas, Inc. (Entergy)’s third-
party contractor, McDermott International, Ltd. (McDermott), was qualified, per its Operator
Qualification Program5 (OQ Plan), when performing the covered task of making an
interconnection between Gulf South’s Willis Lateral Pipeline and Entergy’s Montgomery County
Power Station’s gas supply line in Montgomery County, Texas, on August 3, 2020. Gulf South
and Entergy had an interconnection agreement for this work.
6 Respondent, in its Response,
conceded that the interconnect work at issue is a covered task.
In its Response, Respondent argued it was not required to ensure through evaluation that the
individuals performing the interconnection are qualified, as required by § 192.805(b), because
there was a qualified employee with “full stop work authority” observing Entergy’s contractor
connect the insulating flange to Gulf South’s pipeline. Respondent contended that this was
consistent with § 192.805(c).
Per § 192.805, each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. Section
192.805(b) requires that the written qualification program include provisions to “ensure that
individuals performing covered tasks are qualified.” Section 192.805(c) “allow[s] individuals
that are not qualified pursuant to [subpart N] to perform a covered task if directed and observed
by an individual that is qualified.” Respondent’s OQ Plan states that personnel are required to
ensure that contractors and entities performing covered tasks on its facilities are qualified.7 The
OQ Plan requires Gulf South to “notify [the] contractor of the covered tasks that will be
performed by the contractor.”8 It also specifically requires that Gulf South “[s]ecure from the
contractor or VeriSource documentation (in paper form) required to ensure that the contractor’s
employees that will be performing the covered task(s) is qualified under this OQ Program to
5 Boardwalk Pipelines, Operator Qualification Program, Version 5.50, Effective Date 4/1/2020. See Pipeline
Safety Violation Report, CPF 4-2021-015-NOPV, Exhibit C-15.
6 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, CPF 4-2021-015-NOPV, Exhibit C-13.
7 Violation Report, Exhibit C-3, at page 5.
8 Violation Report, Exhibit C-15, at pages 17 and 18.



perform the covered task(s).”9 The OQ Plan also states that the operator must “[e]nsure
documentation is maintained for all contractors performing covered tasks.”10
The record shows that Respondent did not comply with the regulations or its OQ Plan. Gulf
South was unable to provide any OQ records for personnel who performed the covered task to
show it complied with § 192.805(b). The record also shows that Respondent did not maintain
documentation showing McDermott personnel were qualified in accordance with its OQ Plan.
Respondent also failed to notify the contractor of the covered tasks that would be performed in
compliance with its OQ Plan. Further, Respondent could not show that it reviewed the Entergy
OQ Plan before the covered tasks were performed. Accordingly, I find Respondent failed to
show that it took steps to ensure the individuals performing the covered task on its pipeline were
qualified per § 192.805(b) or that it followed its own OQ Plan, which required Respondent to
maintain documentation showing individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.
I find that Respondent also did not comport with § 192.805(c) or its own OQ Plan that requires a
qualified individual to “remain in a position where they can direct and observe the performance of
the covered task at all times” if non-qualified personnel are utilized to perform covered tasks.11
The record shows Respondent did not “direct and observe” the personnel who performed the
covered task at issue.
12 During the PHMSA inspection, the Boardwalk Manager of Compliance
provided a written statement that detailed the following:
Boardwalk’s (BWP) employee, Alan Pearson, was using his OQ and experience to
ensure [Entergy’s] contractor was installing to industry standards and BWP’s
requirements outlined in the ICA Agreement and Specifications and would have
shut down work if a safety issue was to arise or if he felt that the work was not
being done correctly. As previously stated, BWP will have an experienced
employee on site to oversee any work that may affect its facilities. We would not
allow a connection to our facility without a BWP representative present. He was
not directing [Entergy’s] contractor nor was he providing span of control.
13
(Emphasis Added).
This written statement shows that covered Gulf South personnel were not “directing and
observing” the covered task which was being performed by an individual that Respondent did
not know was qualified or not. Respondent, therefore, does not meet the requirements of
§ 192.805(c) or Respondent’s own OQ Plan.
In its Response, Respondent further argued it was in compliance with its OQ Plan because the
OQ Plan states: “Individuals included in the program are employees, contractors and all others
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Violation Report, Exhibit C-15, at page 35.
12 Violation Report, Exhibit C-12.
13 Violation Report, Exhibit C-12.



who may perform covered tasks on regulated facilities (unless they are specifically exempted by
the applicable regulation) operated by Boardwalk.
”14 I do not find this argument persuasive
because this provision does not alter the fact that no qualified employee was directing and
observing the unqualified individual who performed the covered task, in accordance with
§ 192.805(c) and Gulf South’s OQ Plan.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find
that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.805(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that
individuals performing a covered task on its pipeline were qualified per the OQ Plan.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.15
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $38,000 for the violations cited above.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $38,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.805(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified. In its Response, Respondent argued that if Item 4 is not withdrawn the civil
penalty should be reduced. Respondent asserted that the Violation Report overstates the
potential safety risk in the Gravity section because Gulf South followed § 192.805(c), which
permits a non-qualified individual to perform a covered task if directed and observed by a
qualified individual. Respondent also argued that because it complied with § 192.805(c) the
statement under the Culpability section, that Respondent “failed to comply with an applicable
requirement,” is without support. Finally, Gulf South argued that the statement in the Good
Faith section of the Violation Report that Respondent did not have a reasonable justification for
non-compliance fails to account for its compliance with § 192.805(c).
Respondent’s arguments for a civil penalty reduction are, essentially, that it was in compliance
14 Violation Report, Exhibit C-3, at page 6.
15 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.



with § 192.805(c). For the reasons described under the Findings of Violation section above, I
found that Respondent violated both 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.805(b) and (c). Therefore, no penalty
reduction is warranted.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $38,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer
through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.
Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire
transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation
Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $38,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those
same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment
is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in
referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the
United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3 and 4 for violations of 49 C.F.R.
§§ 192.179(b)(1) and 192.805(b), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who
engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
With regard to the violation of § 192.179(b)(1) (Item 3), Respondent argued the compliance
terms should be withdrawn. For the reasons described in the Findings of Violation section above,
I have withdrawn the allegation of violation for Item 3. Accordingly, I hereby withdraw the
associated compliance order for this Item.
With regard to the violation of § 192.805(b) (Item 4), Respondent argued that the proposed
compliance terms, as written, are “overbroad and inconsistent with § 192.805(c).” Specifically,
Gulf South requested that, if the underlying violation is not withdrawn, the language be amended
to “state that any third-party entity or its contractors are covered under the Boardwalk OQ…to
permit Gulf South to direct and observe third-party entities and their contractors when they
perform a covered task on Gulf South’s facilities.” I agree.
For the reasons stated above, Respondent failed to comply with § 192.805(b) and its OQ plan.
However, the terms of the proposed compliance order for Item 4 are not necessary and are
inconsistent with § 192.805(c). Respondent’s OQ Plan states that personnel are required to



ensure that contractors and entities performing covered tasks on its facilities are qualified.16 The
OQ Plan requires Gulf South to “notify [the] contractor of the covered tasks that will be
performed by the contractor.”17 Gulf South’s OQ Plan requires it to “[s]ecure from the
contractor or VeriSource documentation (in paper form) required to ensure that the contractor’s
employees that will be performing the covered task(s) is qualified under this OQ Program to
perform the covered task(s),
”18 and such documentation must be “maintained for all contractors
performing covered tasks.”19 Furthermore, Respondent’s OQ Plan requires a qualified individual
to “remain in a position where they can direct and observe the performance of the covered task at
all times” if non-qualified personnel are utilized to perform covered tasks.
20 While Respondent
failed to follow its OQ Plan, the provisions as written appear to be consistent with §§ 192.805(b)
and (c). Further, the proposed compliance order requiring modification to Gulf South’s OQ Plan
“to state that any third-party entity or its contractors are covered under its OQ Plan” could
actually result in changes to the procedures that would not be consistent with the provisions in
§192.805(c). For this reason, the Proposed Compliance Order item for the violation of Item 4 is
withdrawn.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1 and 2, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192, but identified
them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow
Boardwalk Pipelines, Operations and Maintenance Manual: Natural Gas,
Pipeline Operations, Section 2180-Prevention of Accidental Ignition (Effective
Date 12/20/2019; Revision Date 7/20/2020) as it relates to fire extinguishers at its
facilities; and
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow
Boardwalk Pipelines, Operations and Maintenance Manual: Natural Gas,
Pipeline Operations, Section 2180-Prevention of Accidental Ignition (Effective
Date 12/20/2019; Revision Date 7/20/2020) as it relates to warning signage at its
facilities.
If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
16 Violation Report, Exhibit C-3, at page 5.
17 Violation Report, Exhibit C-15, at pages 17 and 18.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id., at page 35.



Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than
20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a
petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the
order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 19, 2022
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

42021015NOPV_Closure Letter_05082023_(20-171965)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
May 8, 2023
Mr. Stanley Horton
President and Chief Executive Officer
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77046
CPF 4-2021-015-NOPV
Dear Mr. Horton:
From November 20, 2019 to October 25, 2020, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter
601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC’s (Gulf
South) newly constructed Willis Lateral Pipeline traversing from San Jacinto County to
Montgomery County, Texas. As a result of the inspection, Gulf South was issued a Final Order
(Order) in the above referenced case. This Order included a Civil Penalty.
Gulf South paid the Civil Penalty on December 22, 2022.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bryan Lethcoe
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Mr. Tony G. Rizk, P.E., Vice President, Technical Services, Boardwalk Pipelines
Partners, LP, tony.rizk@bwpipelines.com
Ms. Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, Boardwalk Pipelines Partners, LP,
tina.baker@bwpipelines.com
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 25120