# SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120095003_Closure Letter_06072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Closure%20Letter_06072012.pdf

120095003_Closure Letter_06072012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Closure%20Letter_06072012_text.pdf

120095003_FinalOrder_11252011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_FinalOrder_11252011.pdf

120095003_FinalOrder_11252011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_FinalOrder_11252011_text.pdf

120095003_NOPV PCP PCO_08142009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08142009.pdf

120095003_NOPV PCP PCO_08142009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08142009_text.pdf

120095003_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_09152009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_09152009.pdf

120095003_Operator_Response_05242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120095003/120095003_Operator_Response_05242012.pdf

120095003_NOPV PCP PCO_08142009_text.pdf

U.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 306
Of Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628
Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
FEDEX OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
August 14, 2009
Mr. David A. Justin
Vice President, Operations
Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.
525 Fritztown Road
Sinking Spring, PA 19608
CPF 1-2009-5003
Dear Mr. Justin:
On November 25-26, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted an
investigation into the reported Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sun) incident NRC-890993 that occurred
in Murrysville, PA on November 25, 2008.
On November 25, 2008, two Sun employees were installing a completion plug into a 2” thread-
o-ring fitting on the upstream side of an above ground mainline valve, on the 8” Montello to
Pittsburgh line, located in Murrysville, PA. The completion plug was being set using a TDW T-
101a drilling machine. Shortly after the employees installed the plug and removed the machine,
the completion plug blew out of the fitting. A total of 280 barrels of gasoline was released into
the local environment and nearby Turtle Creek. A total of 111 barrels was recovered. The



incident resulted in numerous evacuations of homes and businesses in the immediate area and the
temporary closure of US Route 22.
As a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violation(s) are:
1. 195.402 Procedural Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies….
The operator’s procedure manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies does not contain
written procedures for personnel installing completion plugs.
The operator was unable to provide a written procedure to show compliance with Section
195.402(a) of the code. Section 195.402(a) of the code requires each operator to prepare and
follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. The operator
stated that they require personnel to follow the manufacturer’s procedures for the setting of
completion plugs. However, the operator could not produce a written procedure from their
O&M manual outlining this requirement. If the operator chooses to utilize the manufacturer’s
procedures, specific industry standards, or other manuals, these documents must be referenced in
the O&M manual to provide guidance to individuals performing a particular O&M or emergency
function.
2. 195.402 Procedural Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies….
plugs on Sun’s pipeline system in Murrysville, PA.
The operator failed to follow the manufacturer’s procedures for the installation of completion
The operator failed to accurately administer the manufacturer’s procedures during the installation
of the completion plug as outlined under Section III of the manufacturer’s T-101a Operating and
Maintenance Instruction manual. During the installation process, operating personnel failed to
properly calculate the correct travel distance as required under section 2.2 of the TDW manual.
This calculation is necessary to determine the distance the completion plug travels to ensure the
plug is completely set and secure in the thread-o-ring fitting. There is a warning outlined under
Section 2.4 D of the TDW manual that states, “If the measurements taken in paragraph 2.2
cannot be attained, do not assume plug is set. Do not remove valve. Thread-o-ring is not
2



completely set. Follow removal instructions, check all work including measurements, and
reset.”
3. §195.505(a) Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks….
The operator failed to identify the “installation of completion plugs” as a covered task under
the operator’s JPM method for Operator Qualification.
During the investigation, the operator stated that there are two different methods that can be
used to qualify an individual to perform a covered task. The first method that can be used is
the Job Performance Measure (“JPM”). The JPM is an in-house process that consists of a
reviewer (usually a supervisor) and a list of task specific requirements/questions that the
qualifying individual completes to demonstrate their ability to perform a specific covered task.
The second method that can be utilized is the NCCER assessment method. The NCCER
method is a computer based qualification system consisting of computer based modules and
written exams. During the November 2008 investigation, a discrepancy was identified
between the two methods to qualify an individual to install completion plugs.
Under the NCCER method of qualification, completion plugs are addressed under task 40.91
(Plugging the pipeline with the lock-o-ring completion plug). According to a cross reference
spread sheet provided by the operator, the NCCER task 40.91 is equivalent to the operators
JPM task 482. However, the operators JPM methods, JPM-OQP-482-001 Rev 1 and JPM-
OQP-482-002 Rev 0 apply specifically to “hot taps” and do not address any of the
requirements for installing completion plugs as outlined in Section III of the TDW Operation
and Maintenance Manual. In addition, none of the other covered tasks under the JPM method
of qualification address completion plugs. Therefore, based on this evidence, the operator has
failed to properly identify “completion plugs” as a covered task under the JPM method of
qualification.
4. §195.505(b) Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified….
The operator failed to ensure through a proper evaluation, that Employee B was qualified to
perform the covered task of “Plugging the pipeline with the lock-o-ring completion plug” as
outlined under NCCER/API covered task 40.91.
3



Based on the information collected during the investigation, Employee B was last qualified under
the operator’s JPM 482 (001,002) on March 27, 2007. However, the performance measures
outlined in JPM 482(001, 002) only apply to “hot tapping” and do not cover any of the specific
details pertaining to completion plugs as outlined in TDW Operating and Maintenance
Instructions, Section III. Therefore, Employee B was not properly qualified to perform this
particular O&M function.
5. §195.505(h) Qualification program.
(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that
individuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to
perform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities...
The operator failed to provide training as required under Section 195.505(h) of the code to
ensure that the individuals installing completion plugs on the pipeline had the necessary
knowledge and skills to perform the task in a manner that ensures the safe operation of the
pipeline. The operator was unable to provide any documentation to demonstrate that Employees
A or B received training as outlined under 195.505(h) of the code.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $232,900 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
1 $ 32,900
2 $100,000
5 $100,000
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Items 1, 3, 4 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco
Pipeline L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part
of this Notice.
4



Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information
qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days
of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in
this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2009-5003 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
5



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sun a Compliance Order incorporating the
following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sun with the pipeline safety
regulations. This Compliance Order pertains to Sun’s employees and contractors associated with
operations or maintenance activities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey or New York.
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to inadequate procedures
under Section 195.402(a) of the code, Sun must develop written procedures that
require the use of the manufacturer’s procedure, or specifically develop a similar
in-house procedure to follow during the installation of completion plugs.
2. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Sun’s failure to identify
“completion plugs” as a covered task in the JPM method of qualifying
individuals, Sun must amend JPM 482 to include evaluation requirements to
address completion plugs or create a new JPM method to address this covered
task.
3. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice, pertaining to Sun’s failure to ensure
that Employee B was qualified to perform completion plugging on the pipeline,
Sun must re-qualify all individuals who were qualified under JPM 482 to perform
completion plugging on Sun’s pipeline system in PA, NY and NJ.
4. Sun must complete the requirements outlined in this Compliance Order within
180 days of receipt of the Final Order. All documentation demonstrating
compliance with each of the items outlined in this order must be submitted to the
Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration for review.
5. Sun shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated
with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Eastern
Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be
reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of
plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.

120095003_Closure Letter_06072012_text.pdf

U.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
Of Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628
Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
June 7, 2012
David A. Justin
Vice President, Operations
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
1818 Market Street
Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3615
CPF 1-2009-5003
Dear Mr. Justin:
On November 25-26, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted an
investigation into the reported Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sun) incident NRC-890993 that occurred
in Murrysville, PA on November 25, 2008. As a result of the investigation, Sun was issued a
Notice of Probable Violation, Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order on August 14,
2009.
On November 25, 2011, PHMSA issued a Final Order to Sun in connection to the above-
referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order which consisted of requirements to
amend your procedures and take corrective actions. Also, this Order included a Civil Penalty
assessment.
Based on our review of the documentation you recently provided and confirmation of payment of
the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
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,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

120095003_FinalOrder_11252011_text.pdf

NOV 25 2011
Mr. David A. Justin
Vice President, Operations
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
1818 Market Street
Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3615
Re: CPF No. 1-2009-5003
Dear Mr. Justin:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $232,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Sunoco Pipeline L.P. to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms
are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the
date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety
Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA
Mr. Bruce D. Davis, Jr., General Counsel, Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.
1818 Market Street, Suite 1500, Philadelphia, PA 19103-3615
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164202902045]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
___________________________________
In the Matter of )
Sunoco Pipeline L.P., ) CPF No. 1-2009-5003
)
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
On November 25-26, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an investigation of a failure that occurred on a hazardous liquids pipeline operated by
Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (Sunoco or Respondent) in Murrysville, Pennsylvania. Sunoco, a
subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P., operates approximately 4,500 miles of hazardous
liquid pipelines transporting crude oil, refined petroleum products, and highly volatile liquids in
Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and several other states.1
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 14, 2009, 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 Sunoco had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed a civil penalty of $232,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed that
Respondent be directed to take specific actions to correct the alleged violations.
Sunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated September 15, 2009 (Response). In its Response,
Respondent contested the allegations contained in the Notice and requested a hearing. A hearing
was held on March 18, 2010, in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, with an attorney from the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. Respondent submitted a post-hearing statement for the
record dated April 15, 2010 (Closing).
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195 as follows:
1 Sunoco has reported this mileage pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes
made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual
shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence,
and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare written
procedures for installing completion plugs on its pipeline system. On November 25, 2008,
Respondent attempted to install a completion plug into a Thread-O-Ring (TOR) fitting on the
upstream side of an aboveground mainline valve on its Montello-to-Pittsburgh 8-inch pipeline.
After attempting to set the completion plug using a TDW T-101 drilling machine, the plug blew
out resulting in the release of approximately 280 barrels (11,760 gallons) of gasoline into the
local environment and nearby Turtle Creek. The pipeline failure resulted in evacuations of
homes and businesses in the immediate area and temporary closure of U.S. Route 22 in
Murrysville, Pennsylvania (NRC Report #890993).
The Notice alleged that Sunoco had failed to include in its operations and maintenance manual
written procedures for installing completion plugs on its pipeline system. The Notice further
alleged that Respondent stated it required personnel to follow the manufacturer’s instructions for
setting completion plugs, but the operator could not produce a written procedure from its
operations and maintenance manual outlining this requirement.
Respondent contended at the hearing and in its Closing that § 195.402(a) did not apply to the
activity of installing a completion plug on November 25, 2008, because it was not a “normal
operation or maintenance activity” to which the regulation applies. Sunoco explained that the
“work being done was for the installation of [pig] launching and receiving traps,” which
constituted a construction project rather than an operations or maintenance activity.2
The evidence in the record shows that on the date in question, Respondent was installing a
completion plug on the pipeline to complete a “tapping,” an activity that involved installing a
TOR fitting, drilling an opening into the pipeline through the fitting, and then plugging the fitting
to prevent product from escaping through the opening. The pipeline segment had been isolated
prior to the work being performed, but the segment still contained gasoline at pipeline pressure.
The tapping of an operational pipeline, including the installation of a completion plug to finish
the tap and prevent release, is an activity that if not properly performed presents a risk of release
that threatens public safety and the environment. By comparison, construction activities are
associated with installing new pipeline. For this reason, I find Respondent’s tapping of an in-
2 Closing at 2.



3
service pipeline and installing a completion plug to seal the tap fell within the scope of conduct
considered an operations or maintenance activity under § 195.402(a). Therefore, Sunoco was
required to have written procedures for the activity.
3
Sunoco also contended that it had written procedures for the installation of completion plugs in
accordance with § 195.402(a). Specifically, Respondent pointed to its DOT 195 Maintenance
Manual, Subpart F-195.402(a) and Subpart G-195.505 (O&M Manual). The O&M Manual
referenced Respondent’s Operator Qualification OQP-482 Hot Tapping procedure (OQP-482),
which Sunoco explained also contained a sub-task for installing completion plugs.
4 The
company introduced these procedures as well as procedures from its qualification program, JPM-
OQP-482-001 Preparing for Hot Tapping and JPM-OQP-482-002 Completing Tap.
5
Respondent argued that its OQ procedure OQP-482 complied with any requirement to have
written procedures for installing completion plugs. The OQP-482 procedure stated that its
purpose was: “To provide instructions for performing/monitoring and control of cutting or
drilling an opening into an in-service pipeline facility without interfering with the normal
operation of the facility.”6 Section 1.1.1 of the procedure required personnel to review the
tapping machine manufacturer’s instructions prior to proceeding to the job site.7 Section 4.4
stated: “When tapping and/or cutting with the hot tapping machine, the manufacturer’s
instructions must be followed.”8 Section 4.12 required Respondent to “Cap or plug tap valve
connection until ready for use.”9 These same procedures were repeated in Sunoco’s OQ tasks
JPM-OQP-482-001 and JPM-OQP-482-002.
10
After reviewing Respondent’s O&M Manual and OQ procedures, I find that Respondent’s
procedures were deficient in several regards. First, Respondent’s O&M Manual did not include
written procedures for tapping or installing completion plugs. Although the O&M Manual cross-
referenced the company’s OQ procedures, it did not explicitly state that the OQ procedures were
being adopted into the O&M Manual. For example, Section 195.402.a-01 of the O&M Manual
lists among various Sunoco manuals and specifications both the DOT 195 Operations Manual
and the Operator Qualification Procedures. Section 195.505-02 of the O&M Manual specifies
that the OQ Written Program is comprised of various sections, including “OQ-Appendix F,
Covered Task Procedures.” But the written O&M procedures did not explain that personnel
were to consult any of these OQ procedures when performing operations and maintenance
activities.
3 Sunoco also argued the activity is not “normally” performed, but the word “normal” in § 195.402(a) qualifies the
term “operations” to distinguish between normal and abnormal operations. See § 195.402(c)-(d).
4 Closing, Exhibits 1 and 1A.
5 Closing, Exhibits 2 and 3.
6 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 1.
7 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 5.
8 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 11.
9 Closing, Exhibit 1A at 12.
10 By comparison, the TDW T-101 drilling machine manufacturer’s installation procedures consisted of
approximately nine pages of detailed instructions on the proper installation and use of completion plugs. Violation
Report, Exhibit A, Item 10.



4
With regard to OQP-482, although the OQ procedures included a general requirement for
individuals to follow the manufacturer’s set of instructions when tapping or cutting with a hot
tapping machine, Respondent’s procedures did not identify the precise manufacturer’s
instructions by name and direct individuals to specific provisions applicable to the relevant
stages of the installation. If Respondent intended to adopt external instructions by reference, the
company’s own written procedures must either reproduce those instructions in the manual or
identify the instructions by name and include the location where the instructions are located to
ensure that employees will follow the correct procedures. Merely referring to “manufacturer’s
instructions” without any additional identifying information is insufficient.
Moreover, it appears there was some inconsistency between Respondent’s OQP-482 procedure
and the TDW T-101 drilling machine manufacturer’s instructions in this case. Section 4.11 of
Sunoco’s procedures permitted the removal of the tapping machine prior to capping or plugging,
but if the tapping machine is removed as permitted under Section 4.11, a completion plug cannot
be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and Respondent’s Section 4.12
procedure, as the TDW tool would have already been removed.
In its Closing, Sunoco argued that § 195.402(a) “does not require any particular level of detail, it
only requires that there be a procedure.”11 I do not accept this argument. Section 195.402
requires that the written procedures at a minimum be “effective” in order to “provide safety
during maintenance and normal operations.”12 Procedures that are ineffective or that do not
provide an acceptable level of safety may be found in noncompliance. In prior enforcement
cases, PHMSA has found an operator’s procedures were in violation of the regulatory
requirement because they were similarly inadequate or lacking in sufficient detail.
present case, Sunoco’s procedures were ineffective because the O&M Manual did not contain
procedures for installing a completion plug, the manual referenced but did not explicitly
incorporate OQ procedures that included a general requirement to follow additional instructions,
the OQ procedures did not identify those additional instructions and where they were located,
and the OQ procedures appeared to be in conflict with the additional instructions.
13 In the
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 195.402(a)
by failing to prepare effective written procedures for installing a completion plug on its pipeline
facility.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), quoted above, by
failing to follow its written procedures, which directed personnel to follow the manufacturer’s
instructions when tapping or cutting with a hot tapping machine. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Sunoco did not properly calculate the travel distance required for the completion plug to set
completely and securely in the TOR fitting, as specified in the manufacturer’s T-101a Operating
11 Closing at 2.
12 § 195.402(a) and (c).
13 See, e.g., In the Matter of CPN Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-1006, at 7, 2009 WL 5538654 (Dec.
16, 2009) (finding that an ineffective cross-reference in the operator’s procedures constituted a violation of
§ 192.911(k)); In the Matter of ChevronTexaco Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2002-0006, at 1, 2003 WL
25429840 (Oct. 6, 2003) (finding that the absence of sufficient detail in the procedures to allow employees to
effectively respond to abnormal and emergency situations constituted a violation of § 192.605) (available online at
“http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement”).



5
and Maintenance Instructions (TDW instructions). After Respondent had installed the
completion plug, the plug allegedly blew out because it had not been completely set in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Sunoco contended that it had followed its own written procedures in accordance with
§ 195.402(a). Respondent stated that it performed the activity “in accordance with their training
and the JPM [job performance measures] criteria,” referring to qualification procedures JPM-
OQP-482-001 and JPM-OQP-482-002. With respect to the manufacturer’s installation
procedures, Sunoco argued that the regulation does not require the company to follow the
manufacturer’s procedures and that its OQ procedures did not require that the manufacturer’s
procedures be followed “to the exclusion of the operator’s training and JPM qualifications.”14
Section 195.402(a) requires an operator to follow its manual of written procedures for
conducting normal operations and maintenance activities. Although I found in Item 1 that
Respondent’s procedures were inadequate, Sunoco’s OQP-482 procedure required personnel to
review and follow the tapping machine manufacturer’s instructions prior to proceeding to the job
site and also when physically tapping the pipeline. In the record is also evidence that
Respondent’s personnel acknowledged that employees were supposed to follow the
manufacturer’s installation instructions. Accordingly, under § 195.402(a), Respondent was
required to follow these procedures during the tapping activity on November 25, 2008.
Section 1.1.1 of Respondent’s OQ Procedures required personnel to review the tapping machine
manufacturer’s instructions prior to proceeding to the job site. In addition, Section 4.4 of
Respondent’s procedures stated: “When tapping and/or cutting with the hot tapping machine, the
manufacturer’s instructions must be followed.” The tapping machine manufacturer’s
instructions, specifically Section III, Paragraph 2.2 of the TDW instructions, specified how to
determine the distance the completion plug must travel to completely set in the TOR fitting. In
addition, Paragraph 2.4 specified how to set the completion plug. This paragraph contained the
following warning: “If the measurements taken in paragraph 2.2 cannot be attained, do not
assume plug is set. Do not remove valve. Thread-o-ring is not completely set. Follow removal
instructions, check all work including measurements, and reset.”15
Although Respondent argued that it had installed the completion plug in accordance with its
procedures, there is no evidence that the company determined the distance for the completion
plug to travel as required by the TDW instructions. The evidence in the record proves it was
more likely that Sunoco failed to follow the instructions resulting in an improperly set plug.
During the PHMSA investigation, evidence was produced that suggested the pipe riser may have
been slightly oval shaped, which could have interfered with the completion plug reaching the
proper seat depth.16 Similarly, Respondent attributed the failure of the plug to a faulty TOR
nipple (into which the completion plug was to be installed), which prevented the uninhibited
insertion of the completion plug.17
Had Respondent followed the TDW instructions to determine
the proper distance the completion plug must travel to be completely set, the company would
14 Closing at 3.
15 Violation Report, Exhibit A, Item 10, pages 18-19.
16 Violation Report at 5.
17 Closing at 1.



6
have likely identified any issue preventing the plug from being correctly installed.
Finally, Sunoco argued that PHMSA cannot find the company in violation for both failing to
have written procedures (Item 1) and failing to follow the written procedures (Item 2).
In Item 1, I found that Respondent’s procedures were ineffective and lacking in detail, which
constituted a violation of the regulatory requirement. Although they were ineffective for
purposes of compliance with the regulatory standard, the procedures nevertheless included a
requirement for personnel to follow the manufacturer’s instructions when tapping or cutting with
a hot tapping machine. The evidence demonstrates Sunoco failed to comply with those
instructions, and therefore failed to comply with its own procedures. Sunoco’s failure to follow
its procedures is a separate offense from the company’s failure to prepare procedures that satisfy
the regulation. Therefore, I find Sunoco may be found in violation for both.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for installing the completion plug.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks; . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.505(a) by failing to identify the installation of
completion plugs as a covered task in its written OQ program. Sunoco’s OQ program had two
methods for qualifying individuals to perform covered tasks: (1) a commercial method developed
by the National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER); and (2) an internal
method developed by Sunoco that uses job performance measures (JPM), an employee reviewer
(usually a supervisor), and a list of task-specific requirements and questions that the qualifying
individual completes.
The Notice alleged that Respondent’s JPM method for qualifying individuals to perform pipeline
tapping (under procedures JPM-OQP-482-001 and JPM-OQP-482-002) did not identify the
installation of completion plugs as a covered task for which individuals must be qualified, and
that only the NCCER method identified the installation of completion plugs as a covered task.
18
Respondent contended that the installation of a completion plug is not a covered task and
therefore the qualification requirements in § 195.505(a) were not applicable. Respondent
explained that the activity does not meet the four-part test for a covered task because the activity
is neither a maintenance task nor required by Part 195.
Section 195.501(b) provides that “a covered task is an activity, identified by the operator, that:
(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) Is an operations or maintenance task; (3) Is performed
as a requirement of this part; and (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.” I have
18 Respondent clarified that the correct NCCER task applicable to installing a completion plugs as part of a TOR
assembly is NCCER task 40.8, not 40.91.



7
already determined in Item 1, above, that tapping a pipeline and installing a completion plug is
an operations or maintenance task. In addition, the task is performed on a pipeline facility and,
as evident from the events of November 25, 2008, the activity has the potential to affect the
operation and integrity of the pipeline.
Respondent argued that tapping a pipeline and installing a completion plug is not performed as a
requirement of Part 195. I disagree. There are a number of pipeline safety requirements that
apply directly to the tapping of a pipeline and installing a completion plug, including
requirements in Subparts C and D of Part 195, which prescribe minimum design and installation
requirements. These requirements must be followed when installing a fitting, plug, or any
pipeline component. Since this function must be performed in accordance with the requirements
in Part 195, I find that tapping a pipeline and installing a completion plug to complete the tap is
an activity that must be identified as an OQ covered task and that individuals performing the
activity must be qualified.
19
Respondent contended further that its JPM method properly included the activity of installing a
completion plug as a “sub-task” of the covered task for tapping a pipeline. The company
explained that it has polled several other pipeline operators and none of them listed the
installation of a completion plug as a covered task in their OQ programs, but rather considered
the activity to be a sub-task within the general covered task of tapping a pipeline.
The OQ regulations at §§ 195.501(b) and 195.505(a) do not refer to “sub-tasks.
” If an operations
or maintenance activity meets the four-part test for a covered task, it does not matter whether an
operator identifies the activity as a separate covered task or an element of another covered task,
so long as the activity has been identified as requiring qualification to perform and the operator
has a process in place to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing the activity are
qualified. Respondent may refer to the installation of a completion plug as a “sub-task” of
tapping a pipeline, but because installing a completion plug to close the tap is a basic element of
tapping that meets the four-part test for a covered task, the operator’s OQ program must identify
installing a completion plug to close the tap as a task requiring qualification.
20
Although the procedures in Section 4.12 of Respondent’s JPM-OQP-482-002 specified that an
individual must “Cap or plug [the] tap valve connection [to seal the opening] until [it is] ready
for use,” this limited procedure by itself did not identify the installation of completion plugs as a
covered task for which personnel must be qualified. In addition, the lack of details in the
procedure resulted in there not being a process by which to ensure individuals can be evaluated
to determine if they are qualified to perform the task.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.505(a) by failing to identify the installation of a completion plug as a covered task in its
OQ program.
19 Qualified means that “an individual has been evaluated and can: (a) Perform assigned covered tasks and
(b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.” § 195.503.
20 See Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2008-5011, at 12 (Aug. 17, 2010) (finding the
installation of Weld+Ends couplings is a covered task even if the operator’s procedures included the activity under a
combined OQ item).



8
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:
§ 195.505 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 § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation
that an individual in
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 60781