{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120095003","title":"SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-08-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(h).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120095003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120095003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120095003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120095003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.505(a),  195.505(b),  195.505(h). The case was opened on 2009-08-14 and is reported as closed as of 2012-06-07. Proposed civil penalty: $232,900. Assessed civil penalty: $232,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120095003_Closure Letter_06072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Closure%20Letter_06072012.pdf\n\n120095003_Closure Letter_06072012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Closure%20Letter_06072012_text.pdf\n\n120095003_FinalOrder_11252011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_FinalOrder_11252011.pdf\n\n120095003_FinalOrder_11252011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_FinalOrder_11252011_text.pdf\n\n120095003_NOPV PCP PCO_08142009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08142009.pdf\n\n120095003_NOPV PCP PCO_08142009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08142009_text.pdf\n\n120095003_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_09152009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_09152009.pdf\n\n120095003_Operator_Response_05242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Operator_Response_05242012.pdf\n\n120095003_NOPV PCP PCO_08142009_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 306\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nFEDEX OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nAugust 14, 2009\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n525 Fritztown Road\nSinking Spring, PA 19608\nCPF 1-2009-5003\nDear Mr. Justin:\nOn November 25-26, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted an\ninvestigation into the reported Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sun) incident NRC-890993 that occurred\nin Murrysville, PA on November 25, 2008.\nOn November 25, 2008, two Sun employees were installing a completion plug into a 2” thread-\no-ring fitting on the upstream side of an above ground mainline valve, on the 8” Montello to\nPittsburgh line, located in Murrysville, PA. The completion plug was being set using a TDW T-\n101a drilling machine. Shortly after the employees installed the plug and removed the machine,\nthe completion plug blew out of the fitting. A total of 280 barrels of gasoline was released into\nthe local environment and nearby Turtle Creek. A total of 111 barrels was recovered. The\n\n\n\nincident resulted in numerous evacuations of homes and businesses in the immediate area and the\ntemporary closure of US Route 22.\nAs a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. 195.402 Procedural Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies….\nThe operator’s procedure manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies does not contain\nwritten procedures for personnel installing completion plugs.\nThe operator was unable to provide a written procedure to show compliance with Section\n195.402(a) of the code. Section 195.402(a) of the code requires each operator to prepare and\nfollow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. The operator\nstated that they require personnel to follow the manufacturer’s procedures for the setting of\ncompletion plugs. However, the operator could not produce a written procedure from their\nO&M manual outlining this requirement. If the operator chooses to utilize the manufacturer’s\nprocedures, specific industry standards, or other manuals, these documents must be referenced in\nthe O&M manual to provide guidance to individuals performing a particular O&M or emergency\nfunction.\n2. 195.402 Procedural Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies….\nplugs on Sun’s pipeline system in Murrysville, PA.\nThe operator failed to follow the manufacturer’s procedures for the installation of completion\nThe operator failed to accurately administer the manufacturer’s procedures during the installation\nof the completion plug as outlined under Section III of the manufacturer’s T-101a Operating and\nMaintenance Instruction manual. During the installation process, operating personnel failed to\nproperly calculate the correct travel distance as required under section 2.2 of the TDW manual.\nThis calculation is necessary to determine the distance the completion plug travels to ensure the\nplug is completely set and secure in the thread-o-ring fitting. There is a warning outlined under\nSection 2.4 D of the TDW manual that states, “If the measurements taken in paragraph 2.2\ncannot be attained, do not assume plug is set. Do not remove valve. Thread-o-ring is not\n2\n\n\n\ncompletely set. Follow removal instructions, check all work including measurements, and\nreset.”\n3. §195.505(a) Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks….\nThe operator failed to identify the “installation of completion plugs” as a covered task under\nthe operator’s JPM method for Operator Qualification.\nDuring the investigation, the operator stated that there are two different methods that can be\nused to qualify an individual to perform a covered task. The first method that can be used is\nthe Job Performance Measure (“JPM”). The JPM is an in-house process that consists of a\nreviewer (usually a supervisor) and a list of task specific requirements/questions that the\nqualifying individual completes to demonstrate their ability to perform a specific covered task.\nThe second method that can be utilized is the NCCER assessment method. The NCCER\nmethod is a computer based qualification system consisting of computer based modules and\nwritten exams. During the November 2008 investigation, a discrepancy was identified\nbetween the two methods to qualify an individual to install completion plugs.\nUnder the NCCER method of qualification, completion plugs are addressed under task 40.91\n(Plugging the pipeline with the lock-o-ring completion plug). According to a cross reference\nspread sheet provided by the operator, the NCCER task 40.91 is equivalent to the operators\nJPM task 482. However, the operators JPM methods, JPM-OQP-482-001 Rev 1 and JPM-\nOQP-482-002 Rev 0 apply specifically to “hot taps” and do not address any of the\nrequirements for installing completion plugs as outlined in Section III of the TDW Operation\nand Maintenance Manual. In addition, none of the other covered tasks under the JPM method\nof qualification address completion plugs. Therefore, based on this evidence, the operator has\nfailed to properly identify “completion plugs” as a covered task under the JPM method of\nqualification.\n4. §195.505(b) Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program\nshall include provisions to:\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified….\nThe operator failed to ensure through a proper evaluation, that Employee B was qualified to\nperform the covered task of “Plugging the pipeline with the lock-o-ring completion plug” as\noutlined under NCCER/API covered task 40.91.\n3\n\n\n\nBased on the information collected during the investigation, Employee B was last qualified under\nthe operator’s JPM 482 (001,002) on March 27, 2007. However, the performance measures\noutlined in JPM 482(001, 002) only apply to “hot tapping” and do not cover any of the specific\ndetails pertaining to completion plugs as outlined in TDW Operating and Maintenance\nInstructions, Section III. Therefore, Employee B was not properly qualified to perform this\nparticular O&M function.\n5. §195.505(h) Qualification program.\n(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that\nindividuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to\nperform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities...\nThe operator failed to provide training as required under Section 195.505(h) of the code to\nensure that the individuals installing completion plugs on the pipeline had the necessary\nknowledge and skills to perform the task in a manner that ensures the safe operation of the\npipeline. The operator was unable to provide any documentation to demonstrate that Employees\nA or B received training as outlined under 195.505(h) of the code.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $232,900 as follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\n1 $ 32,900\n2 $100,000\n5 $100,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, 4 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco\nPipeline L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice.\n4\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2009-5003 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sun a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sun with the pipeline safety\nregulations. This Compliance Order pertains to Sun’s employees and contractors associated with\noperations or maintenance activities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey or New York.\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to inadequate procedures\nunder Section 195.402(a) of the code, Sun must develop written procedures that\nrequire the use of the manufacturer’s procedure, or specifically develop a similar\nin-house procedure to follow during the installation of completion plugs.\n2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Sun’s failure to identify\n“completion plugs” as a covered task in the JPM method of qualifying\nindividuals, Sun must amend JPM 482 to include evaluation requirements to\naddress completion plugs or create a new JPM method to address this covered\ntask.\n3. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice, pertaining to Sun’s failure to ensure\nthat Employee B was qualified to perform completion plugging on the pipeline,\nSun must re-qualify all individuals who were qualified under JPM 482 to perform\ncompletion plugging on Sun’s pipeline system in PA, NY and NJ.\n4. Sun must complete the requirements outlined in this Compliance Order within\n180 days of receipt of the Final Order. All documentation demonstrating\ncompliance with each of the items outlined in this order must be submitted to the\nDirector, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration for review.\n5. Sun shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Eastern\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n120095003_Closure Letter_06072012_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nEXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nJune 7, 2012\nDavid A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n1818 Market Street\nSuite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-3615\nCPF 1-2009-5003\nDear Mr. Justin:\nOn November 25-26, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted an\ninvestigation into the reported Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sun) incident NRC-890993 that occurred\nin Murrysville, PA on November 25, 2008. As a result of the investigation, Sun was issued a\nNotice of Probable Violation, Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order on August 14,\n2009.\nOn November 25, 2011, PHMSA issued a Final Order to Sun in connection to the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order which consisted of requirements to\namend your procedures and take corrective actions. Also, this Order included a Civil Penalty\nassessment.\nBased on our review of the documentation you recently provided and confirmation of payment of\nthe civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120095003_FinalOrder_11252011_text.pdf\n\nNOV 25 2011\nMr. David A. Justin\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n1818 Market Street\nSuite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103-3615\nRe: CPF No. 1-2009-5003\nDear Mr. Justin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $232,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nSunoco Pipeline L.P. to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms\nare set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety\nMr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nMr. Bruce D. Davis, Jr., General Counsel, Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.\n1818 Market Street, Suite 1500, Philadelphia, PA 19103-3615\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164202902045]\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 )\nSunoco Pipeline L.P., ) CPF No. 1-2009-5003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 25-26, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an investigation of a failure that occurred on a hazardous liquids pipeline operated by\nSunoco Pipeline L.P. (Sunoco or Respondent) in Murrysville, Pennsylvania. Sunoco, a\nsubsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P., operates approximately 4,500 miles of hazardous\nliquid pipelines transporting crude oil, refined petroleum products, and highly volatile liquids in\nTexas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and several other states.1\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 14, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed a civil penalty of $232,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed that\nRespondent be directed to take specific actions to correct the alleged violations.\nSunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated September 15, 2009 (Response). In its Response,\nRespondent contested the allegations contained in the Notice and requested a hearing. A hearing\nwas held on March 18, 2010, in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, with an attorney from the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. Respondent submitted a post-hearing statement for the\nrecord dated April 15, 2010 (Closing).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195 as follows:\n1 Sunoco has reported this mileage pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual\nshall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence,\nand appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare written\nprocedures for installing completion plugs on its pipeline system. On November 25, 2008,\nRespondent attempted to install a completion plug into a Thread-O-Ring (TOR) fitting on the\nupstream side of an aboveground mainline valve on its Montello-to-Pittsburgh 8-inch pipeline.\nAfter attempting to set the completion plug using a TDW T-101 drilling machine, the plug blew\nout resulting in the release of approximately 280 barrels (11,760 gallons) of gasoline into the\nlocal environment and nearby Turtle Creek. The pipeline failure resulted in evacuations of\nhomes and businesses in the immediate area and temporary closure of U.S. Route 22 in\nMurrysville, Pennsylvania (NRC Report #890993).\nThe Notice alleged that Sunoco had failed to include in its operations and maintenance manual\nwritten procedures for installing completion plugs on its pipeline system. The Notice further\nalleged that Respondent stated it required personnel to follow the manufacturer’s instructions for\nsetting completion plugs, but the operator could not produce a written procedure from its\noperations and maintenance manual outlining this requirement.\nRespondent contended at the hearing and in its Closing that § 195.402(a) did not apply to the\nactivity of installing a completion plug on November 25, 2008, because it was not a “normal\noperation or maintenance activity” to which the regulation applies. Sunoco explained that the\n“work being done was for the installation of [pig] launching and receiving traps,” which\nconstituted a construction project rather than an operations or maintenance activity.2\nThe evidence in the record shows that on the date in question, Respondent was installing a\ncompletion plug on the pipeline to complete a “tapping,” an activity that involved installing a\nTOR fitting, drilling an opening into the pipeline through the fitting, and then plugging the fitting\nto prevent product from escaping through the opening. The pipeline segment had been isolated\nprior to the work being performed, but the segment still contained gasoline at pipeline pressure.\nThe tapping of an operational pipeline, including the installation of a completion plug to finish\nthe tap and prevent release, is an activity that if not properly performed presents a risk of release\nthat threatens public safety and the environment. By comparison, construction activities are\nassociated with installing new pipeline. For this reason, I find Respondent’s tapping of an in-\n2 Closing at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nservice pipeline and installing a completion plug to seal the tap fell within the scope of conduct\nconsidered an operations or maintenance activity under § 195.402(a). Therefore, Sunoco was\nrequired to have written procedures for the activity.\n3\nSunoco also contended that it had written procedures for the installation of completion plugs in\naccordance with § 195.402(a). Specifically, Respondent pointed to its DOT 195 Maintenance\nManual, Subpart F-195.402(a) and Subpart G-195.505 (O&M Manual). The O&M Manual\nreferenced Respondent’s Operator Qualification OQP-482 Hot Tapping procedure (OQP-482),\nwhich Sunoco explained also contained a sub-task for installing completion plugs.\n4 The\ncompany introduced these procedures as well as procedures from its qualification program, JPM-\nOQP-482-001 Preparing for Hot Tapping and JPM-OQP-482-002 Completing Tap.\n5\nRespondent argued that its OQ procedure OQP-482 complied with any requirement to have\nwritten procedures for installing completion plugs. The OQP-482 procedure stated that its\npurpose was: “To provide instructions for performing/monitoring and control of cutting or\ndrilling an opening into an in-service pipeline facility without interfering with the normal\noperation of the facility.”6 Section 1.1.1 of the procedure required personnel to review the\ntapping machine manufacturer’s instructions prior to proceeding to the job site.7 Section 4.4\nstated: “When tapping and/or cutting with the hot tapping machine, the manufacturer’s\ninstructions must be followed.”8 Section 4.12 required Respondent to “Cap or plug tap valve\nconnection until ready for use.”9 These same procedures were repeated in Sunoco’s OQ tasks\nJPM-OQP-482-001 and JPM-OQP-482-002.\n10\nAfter reviewing Respondent’s O&M Manual and OQ procedures, I find that Respondent’s\nprocedures were deficient in several regards. First, Respondent’s O&M Manual did not include\nwritten procedures for tapping or installing completion plugs. Although the O&M Manual cross-\nreferenced the company’s OQ procedures, it did not explicitly state that the OQ procedures were\nbeing adopted into the O&M Manual. For example, Section 195.402.a-01 of the O&M Manual\nlists among various Sunoco manuals and specifications both the DOT 195 Operations Manual\nand the Operator Qualification Procedures. Section 195.505-02 of the O&M Manual specifies\nthat the OQ Written Program is comprised of various sections, including “OQ-Appendix F,\nCovered Task Procedures.” But the written O&M procedures did not explain that personnel\nwere to consult any of these OQ procedures when performing operations and maintenance\nactivities.\n3 Sunoco also argued the activity is not “normally” performed, but the word “normal” in § 195.402(a) qualifies the\nterm “operations” to distinguish between normal and abnormal operations. See § 195.402(c)-(d).\n4 Closing, Exhibits 1 and 1A.\n5 Closing, Exhibits 2 and 3.\n6 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 1.\n7 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 5.\n8 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 11.\n9 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 12.\n10 By comparison, the TDW T-101 drilling machine manufacturer’s installation procedures consisted of\napproximately nine pages of detailed instructions on the proper installation and use of completion plugs. Violation\nReport, Exhibit A, Item 10.\n\n\n\n4\nWith regard to OQP-482, although the OQ procedures included a general requirement for\nindividuals to follow the manufacturer’s set of instructions when tapping or cutting with a hot\ntapping machine, Respondent’s procedures did not identify the precise manufacturer’s\ninstructions by name and direct individuals to specific provisions applicable to the relevant\nstages of the installation. If Respondent intended to adopt external instructions by reference, the\ncompany’s own written procedures must either reproduce those instructions in the manual or\nidentify the instructions by name and include the location where the instructions are located to\nensure that employees will follow the correct procedures. Merely referring to “manufacturer’s\ninstructions” without any additional identifying information is insufficient.\nMoreover, it appears there was some inconsistency between Respondent’s OQP-482 procedure\nand the TDW T-101 drilling machine manufacturer’s instructions in this case. Section 4.11 of\nSunoco’s procedures permitted the removal of the tapping machine prior to capping or plugging,\nbut if the tapping machine is removed as permitted under Section 4.11, a completion plug cannot\nbe installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and Respondent’s Section 4.12\nprocedure, as the TDW tool would have already been removed.\nIn its Closing, Sunoco argued that § 195.402(a) “does not require any particular level of detail, it\nonly requires that there be a procedure.”11 I do not accept this argument. Section 195.402\nrequires that the written procedures at a minimum be “effective” in order to “provide safety\nduring maintenance and normal operations.”12 Procedures that are ineffective or that do not\nprovide an acceptable level of safety may be found in noncompliance. In prior enforcement\ncases, PHMSA has found an operator’s procedures were in violation of the regulatory\nrequirement because they were similarly inadequate or lacking in sufficient detail.\npresent case, Sunoco’s procedures were ineffective because the O&M Manual did not contain\nprocedures for installing a completion plug, the manual referenced but did not explicitly\nincorporate OQ procedures that included a general requirement to follow additional instructions,\nthe OQ procedures did not identify those additional instructions and where they were located,\nand the OQ procedures appeared to be in conflict with the additional instructions.\n13 In the\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 195.402(a)\nby failing to prepare effective written procedures for installing a completion plug on its pipeline\nfacility.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), quoted above, by\nfailing to follow its written procedures, which directed personnel to follow the manufacturer’s\ninstructions when tapping or cutting with a hot tapping machine. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Sunoco did not properly calculate the travel distance required for the completion plug to set\ncompletely and securely in the TOR fitting, as specified in the manufacturer’s T-101a Operating\n11 Closing at 2.\n12 § 195.402(a) and (c).\n13 See, e.g., In the Matter of CPN Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-1006, at 7, 2009 WL 5538654 (Dec.\n16, 2009) (finding that an ineffective cross-reference in the operator’s procedures constituted a violation of\n§ 192.911(k)); In the Matter of ChevronTexaco Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2002-0006, at 1, 2003 WL\n25429840 (Oct. 6, 2003) (finding that the absence of sufficient detail in the procedures to allow employees to\neffectively respond to abnormal and emergency situations constituted a violation of § 192.605) (available online at\n“http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement”).\n\n\n\n5\nand Maintenance Instructions (TDW instructions). After Respondent had installed the\ncompletion plug, the plug allegedly blew out because it had not been completely set in\naccordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.\nSunoco contended that it had followed its own written procedures in accordance with\n§ 195.402(a). Respondent stated that it performed the activity “in accordance with their training\nand the JPM [job performance measures] criteria,” referring to qualification procedures JPM-\nOQP-482-001 and JPM-OQP-482-002. With respect to the manufacturer’s installation\nprocedures, Sunoco argued that the regulation does not require the company to follow the\nmanufacturer’s procedures and that its OQ procedures did not require that the manufacturer’s\nprocedures be followed “to the exclusion of the operator’s training and JPM qualifications.”14\nSection 195.402(a) requires an operator to follow its manual of written procedures for\nconducting normal operations and maintenance activities. Although I found in Item 1 that\nRespondent’s procedures were inadequate, Sunoco’s OQP-482 procedure required personnel to\nreview and follow the tapping machine manufacturer’s instructions prior to proceeding to the job\nsite and also when physically tapping the pipeline. In the record is also evidence that\nRespondent’s personnel acknowledged that employees were supposed to follow the\nmanufacturer’s installation instructions. Accordingly, under § 195.402(a), Respondent was\nrequired to follow these procedures during the tapping activity on November 25, 2008.\nSection 1.1.1 of Respondent’s OQ Procedures required personnel to review the tapping machine\nmanufacturer’s instructions prior to proceeding to the job site. In addition, Section 4.4 of\nRespondent’s procedures stated: “When tapping and/or cutting with the hot tapping machine, the\nmanufacturer’s instructions must be followed.” The tapping machine manufacturer’s\ninstructions, specifically Section III, Paragraph 2.2 of the TDW instructions, specified how to\ndetermine the distance the completion plug must travel to completely set in the TOR fitting. In\naddition, Paragraph 2.4 specified how to set the completion plug. This paragraph contained the\nfollowing warning: “If the measurements taken in paragraph 2.2 cannot be attained, do not\nassume plug is set. Do not remove valve. Thread-o-ring is not completely set. Follow removal\ninstructions, check all work including measurements, and reset.”15\nAlthough Respondent argued that it had installed the completion plug in accordance with its\nprocedures, there is no evidence that the company determined the distance for the completion\nplug to travel as required by the TDW instructions. The evidence in the record proves it was\nmore likely that Sunoco failed to follow the instructions resulting in an improperly set plug.\nDuring the PHMSA investigation, evidence was produced that suggested the pipe riser may have\nbeen slightly oval shaped, which could have interfered with the completion plug reaching the\nproper seat depth.16 Similarly, Respondent attributed the failure of the plug to a faulty TOR\nnipple (into which the completion plug was to be installed), which prevented the uninhibited\ninsertion of the completion plug.17\nHad Respondent followed the TDW instructions to determine\nthe proper distance the completion plug must travel to be completely set, the company would\n14 Closing at 3.\n15 Violation Report, Exhibit A, Item 10, pages 18-19.\n16 Violation Report at 5.\n17 Closing at 1.\n\n\n\n6\nhave likely identified any issue preventing the plug from being correctly installed.\nFinally, Sunoco argued that PHMSA cannot find the company in violation for both failing to\nhave written procedures (Item 1) and failing to follow the written procedures (Item 2).\nIn Item 1, I found that Respondent’s procedures were ineffective and lacking in detail, which\nconstituted a violation of the regulatory requirement. Although they were ineffective for\npurposes of compliance with the regulatory standard, the procedures nevertheless included a\nrequirement for personnel to follow the manufacturer’s instructions when tapping or cutting with\na hot tapping machine. The evidence demonstrates Sunoco failed to comply with those\ninstructions, and therefore failed to comply with its own procedures. Sunoco’s failure to follow\nits procedures is a separate offense from the company’s failure to prepare procedures that satisfy\nthe regulation. Therefore, I find Sunoco may be found in violation for both.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for installing the completion plug.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks; . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(a) by failing to identify the installation of\ncompletion plugs as a covered task in its written OQ program. Sunoco’s OQ program had two\nmethods for qualifying individuals to perform covered tasks: (1) a commercial method developed\nby the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER); and (2) an internal\nmethod developed by Sunoco that uses job performance measures (JPM), an employee reviewer\n(usually a supervisor), and a list of task-specific requirements and questions that the qualifying\nindividual completes.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s JPM method for qualifying individuals to perform pipeline\ntapping (under procedures JPM-OQP-482-001 and JPM-OQP-482-002) did not identify the\ninstallation of completion plugs as a covered task for which individuals must be qualified, and\nthat only the NCCER method identified the installation of completion plugs as a covered task.\n18\nRespondent contended that the installation of a completion plug is not a covered task and\ntherefore the qualification requirements in § 195.505(a) were not applicable. Respondent\nexplained that the activity does not meet the four-part test for a covered task because the activity\nis neither a maintenance task nor required by Part 195.\nSection 195.501(b) provides that “a covered task is an activity, identified by the operator, that:\n(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) Is an operations or maintenance task; (3) Is performed\nas a requirement of this part; and (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.” I have\n18 Respondent clarified that the correct NCCER task applicable to installing a completion plugs as part of a TOR\nassembly is NCCER task 40.8, not 40.91.\n\n\n\n7\nalready determined in Item 1, above, that tapping a pipeline and installing a completion plug is\nan operations or maintenance task. In addition, the task is performed on a pipeline facility and,\nas evident from the events of November 25, 2008, the activity has the potential to affect the\noperation and integrity of the pipeline.\nRespondent argued that tapping a pipeline and installing a completion plug is not performed as a\nrequirement of Part 195. I disagree. There are a number of pipeline safety requirements that\napply directly to the tapping of a pipeline and installing a completion plug, including\nrequirements in Subparts C and D of Part 195, which prescribe minimum design and installation\nrequirements. These requirements must be followed when installing a fitting, plug, or any\npipeline component. Since this function must be performed in accordance with the requirements\nin Part 195, I find that tapping a pipeline and installing a completion plug to complete the tap is\nan activity that must be identified as an OQ covered task and that individuals performing the\nactivity must be qualified.\n19\nRespondent contended further that its JPM method properly included the activity of installing a\ncompletion plug as a “sub-task” of the covered task for tapping a pipeline. The company\nexplained that it has polled several other pipeline operators and none of them listed the\ninstallation of a completion plug as a covered task in their OQ programs, but rather considered\nthe activity to be a sub-task within the general covered task of tapping a pipeline.\nThe OQ regulations at §§ 195.501(b) and 195.505(a) do not refer to “sub-tasks.\n” If an operations\nor maintenance activity meets the four-part test for a covered task, it does not matter whether an\noperator identifies the activity as a separate covered task or an element of another covered task,\nso long as the activity has been identified as requiring qualification to perform and the operator\nhas a process in place to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing the activity are\nqualified. Respondent may refer to the installation of a completion plug as a “sub-task” of\ntapping a pipeline, but because installing a completion plug to close the tap is a basic element of\ntapping that meets the four-part test for a covered task, the operator’s OQ program must identify\ninstalling a completion plug to close the tap as a task requiring qualification.\n20\nAlthough the procedures in Section 4.12 of Respondent’s JPM-OQP-482-002 specified that an\nindividual must “Cap or plug [the] tap valve connection [to seal the opening] until [it is] ready\nfor use,” this limited procedure by itself did not identify the installation of completion plugs as a\ncovered task for which personnel must be qualified. In addition, the lack of details in the\nprocedure resulted in there not being a process by which to ensure individuals can be evaluated\nto determine if they are qualified to perform the task.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(a) by failing to identify the installation of a completion plug as a covered task in its\nOQ program.\n19 Qualified means that “an individual has been evaluated and can: (a) Perform assigned covered tasks and\n(b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.” § 195.503.\n20 See Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2008-5011, at 12 (Aug. 17, 2010) (finding the\ninstallation of Weld+Ends couplings is a covered task even if the operator’s procedures included the activity under a\ncombined OQ item).\n\n\n\n8\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified; . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation\nthat an individual in","truncated":true,"body_characters":60781}