{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120195006","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":"2019-05-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.106(b)(1)(i), 195.440(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120195006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120195006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120195006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120195006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.106(b)(1)(i),  195.440(c). The case was opened on 2019-05-17 and is reported as closed as of 2021-01-21. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120195006_Closure Letter_01212021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Closure%20Letter_01212021.pdf\n\n120195006_Closure Letter_01212021_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Closure%20Letter_01212021_text.pdf\n\n120195006_Final Order_06262020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Final%20Order_06262020.pdf\n\n120195006_Final Order_06262020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Final%20Order_06262020_text.pdf\n\n120195006_NOPV PCO_05172019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_NOPV%20PCO_05172019.pdf\n\n120195006_Operator Post-Hearing Submission_12232019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Submission_12232019.pdf\n\n120195006_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_10282019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submission_10282019.pdf\n\n120195006_Operator Request for Hearing_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing_06192019.pdf\n\n120195006_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10012019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_10012019.pdf\n\n120195006_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10012019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120195006/120195006_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_10012019_text.pdf\n\n120195006_Closure Letter_01212021_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nJanuary 21, 2021\nGreg McIlwain\nSenior VP, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n1300 Main Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 1-2019-5006\nDear Mr. McIlwain:\nOn June 26, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been\ndetermined 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,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120195006_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10012019_text.pdf\n\nOctober 1, 2019\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: catherine.little@troutman.com and\nrobert.burrough@dot.gov\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq.\nCounsel for Sunoco Pipeline, LP\nTroutman Sanders, LLP\n600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000\nAtlanta, Georgia 30308\nMr. Robert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, New Jersey 08628\nRe: Notice of Hearing, Sunoco Pipeline, LP\nCPF No. 1-2019-5006\nDear Ms. Little and Mr. Burrough:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order issued to Sunoco Pipeline, LP, by the Office of\nPipeline Safety in the above-referenced matter. The hearing will take place November 7, 2019,\nbeginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time.\nThe hearing will be at the PHMSA Eastern Region office, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West\nTrenton, New Jersey 08628. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present\nphoto identification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is\n(609) 989-2171.\nAt least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by October 28, 2019), both parties must submit\nand exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and a list of\nattendees. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not submitted by this date\nmay be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 366-9093.\nSincerely,\nLarry White\nPresiding Official\ncc: Mr. Gregory Mcilwain, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer, LP, 1300 Main\nStreet, Houston, Texas 77002\nMs. Ajoke Agboola, Counsel, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\n\n120195006_Final Order_06262020_text.pdf\n\nJune 26, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kelcy.warren@energytransfer.com\nMr. Kelcy L. Warren\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 1-2019-5006\nDear Mr. Warren:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of\nthe allegations of violation, makes a finding of violation, and specifies actions that need to be\ntaken by your subsidiary, Sunoco Pipeline, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nWhen the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director,\nEastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic\nmail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Greg McIlwain, Senior Vice President – Operations, Energy Transfer Partners, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Troutman Sanders, LLP, catherine.little@troutman.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2019-5006\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn various dates from August through November, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Sunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent) for the GRE Flow\nReversal/Repurposing Project on the Mariner East 2 pipeline system located in Pennsylvania (the\nGRE Project). Sunoco Pipeline, LP operates approximately 5,851 miles of hazardous liquid\npipelines and other assets in 11 states and is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 17, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had\ncommitted two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated June 20, 2019 (Response). In its Response,\nSunoco contested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nNovember 7, 2019, in West Trenton, New Jersey before a PHMSA Presiding Official. At the\nhearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. Respondent provided additional written\nmaterial prior to the hearing on October 28, 2019 (Pre-hearing submission), and following the\nhearing on December 28, 2019 (Post-hearing submission). The Director submitted a\nrecommendation on January 21, 2020 (Recommendation).2\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 21, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 1; Energy Transfer\nwebsite, available at https://www.energytransfer.com/ownership-structure (last accessed June 16, 2020).\n2 Respondent submitted a reply to the Director’s recommendation on February 10, 2020, to which OPS submitted\nan objection on February 18, 2020. Because the record in this proceeding was closed by this time and no request to\nsubmit these items was made or granted, these submissions were disregarded.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5006\nPage2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.106(b), which states:\n§ 195.106 Internal design pressure.\n(a) …\n(b) The yield strength to be used in determining the internal design\npressure under paragraph (a) of this section is the specified minimum yield\nstrength. If the specified minimum yield strength is not known, the yield\nstrength to be used in the design formula is one of the following:\n(1)(i) The yield strength determined by performing all of the tensile tests\nof ANSI/API Spec 5L (incorporated by reference, see §195.3) on randomly\nselected specimens with the following number of tests:\nPipe size No. of tests\nLess than 65∕8 in (168 mm) nominal\noutside diameter.\nOne test for each 200 lengths.\n65∕8 in through 123∕4 in (168 mm\nthrough 324 mm) nominal outside\ndiameter.\nOne test for each 100 lengths.\nLarger than 123∕4 in (324 mm)\nnominal outside diameter.\nOne test for each 50 lengths.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.106(b) by failing to conduct\nsufficient random tensile tests to determine the internal design pressure of certain pipeline\nsegments undergoing a change in maximum operating pressure (MOP) where the specified\nminimum yield strength (SMYS) was not known. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\nSMYS was not known because the historical records Respondent used to establish that the 12-\ninch pipe was Grade B pipe having a SMYS of 35,000 should have been supplemented with\nadditional historical records that validated these records.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Sunoco strongly disagreed with OPS and stated that the\nallegation should be withdrawn. Respondent explained that the pipe grade and SMYS was\nknown by Respondent from records it inherited from a predecessor company. These records\nincluded an August 1969 system map prepared by Atlantic Pipe Line Corporation; a December\n1967 Atlantic Pipe Data Sheet; and a 1989 Line Testing Committee Report from Sun Pipe Line\nCompany, a subsequent owner of the GRE Segment.3 All of these records indicated that the\nGRE Segment is Grade B seamless pipe.\nOPS maintained that the records provided by Respondent were insufficiently validated for the\npipe grade and SMYS to be considered “known” by Respondent and pointed out that the original\n1937 manufacturing records did not include mill test reports. In the Notice, OPS quoted\n3 Prehearing submission, Exhibits 6-8.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5006\nPage3\nextensively from two advisory bulletins published by OPS concerning verification of records.4\nCiting Advisory Bulletin ADB-2014-04, the Notice stated that operators should validate material\nand strength test records for all affected segments of pipe as reminded in Advisory Bulletin\nADB-12-06 which stated, “If the operator is missing records, they should create and implement a\nplan to obtain material documentation. If mechanical and/or chemical properties (mill test\nreports) are missing, the plan should require destructive tests to confirm material properties of\n[the] pipeline. Certain high-risk pipelines merit a greater level of due diligence.”5\nThe issue to be determined in this case is whether the records produced by Respondent were\nsufficient to draw the conclusion that the pipe grade and SMYS were “known.” As Sunoco\nnoted, the term “known” is not defined in the Part 195 regulations. In interpreting undefined\nregulatory terms, we look to the common dictionary definition. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary\ndefines “known” to mean “generally recognized.”6 Respondent produced an August 1969\nsystem map prepared by Atlantic Pipe Line Corporation; a December 1967 Atlantic Pipe Data\nSheet; and a 1989 Line Testing Committee Report from Sun Pipe Line Company, a subsequent\nowner of the GRE Segment.7 All of these records indicated that the GRE Segment is Grade B\nseamless pipe. Sunoco provided copies of these records and OPS did not question their\nauthenticity. In addition, Respondent’s Senior Manager of Pipeline Integrity testified at the\nhearing that the pipeline had been documented, maintained, and treated as Grade B pipe.8\nRespondent maintained that the grade and SMYS of the pipeline in question was actually\n“known” in the context of 49 C.F.R. § 195.106(b).9\nHaving considered these arguments, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent\nhad adequately documented that the segment of pipe in question was Grade B with a SMYS of\n35,000 psi. The Region’s justification for demanding that the operator perform additional,\nrandom tensile testing was neither necessary nor reasonable in light of the operator’s production\nof adequate documentation demonstrating its knowledge and confidence about the internal\ndesign pressure specifications for the pipeline segments at issue in this case. Based upon the\nforegoing, I hereby order that Item 1 of the Notice be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) …\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,\n4 Notice, at 3.\n5 77 FR 26822 (May 7, 2012). Advisory bulletins are a form of guidance and are not enforceable.\n6 See https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/known.\n7 Prehearing submission, Exhibits 6-8.\n8 Hearing transcript, at 29.\n9 It is also notable that when tensile testing was voluntarily conducted on the 12-inch piping, the results for the\nactual yield strength ended up being consistent with Respondent’s understanding from its records that the pipe was\nGrade B with specified 35,000 psi yield strength, and the MOP of the pipeline was never out of compliance with the\nPart 195 regulations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5006\nPage4\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless\nthe operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to\nwhy compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice\nis not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c) by failing to follow the\npublic awareness program requirements of API RP 1162.10 Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent failed to tailor its communications coverage area to fit its particular pipeline,\nlocation, and potential impact consequences.\nFollowing the hearing, Sunoco stated that it was no longer contesting this allegation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c) by failing to follow the public awareness\nprogram requirements of API RP 1162.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for alleged\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.106(b), and 195.440(c), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. With regard to the alleged violation of § 195.106(b) (Item 1), as discussed\nabove, this allegation has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the\nNotice for Item 1 are also withdrawn.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms regarding the violation of § 195.440(c) (Item 2), pursuant\nto the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take\nthe following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.440(c) (Item 2), within 60 days of receipt of\nthis Final Order, Respondent must:\na. Modify its Public Awareness Plan (PAP) applicable to the new ME2 pipeline,\nincluding any temporary reversal and repurposed portions of the existing 12-\ninch PTBR to MNTL pipeline and any components of the new 16-inch ME2X\npipeline which will be utilized to facilitate transportation of HVLs. Sunoco\nshall expand its communication coverage area for Stakeholder Audience\nIdentification, as defined by API RP 1162, consistent with areas of potential\nimpact for their pipeline facilities. Sunoco shall also update its PAP to reflect\ncommunication buffer area(s) and information on how buffer(s) were\ndetermined and/or rational for selection.\n10 API RP 1162 is incorporated by reference in Part 195, see § 195.3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2019-5006\nPage5\nb. Should the modification be deemed unwarranted, Sunoco shall provide\njustification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with\nall or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and\nnot necessary for safety, specifically, education of Stakeholder Audiences that\nwere determined to be susceptible to product dispersion and/or thermal\nradiation impact.\nc. PAP modifications and/or justifications required under Item 2 shall be\nsubmitted to the PHMSA Director of the Eastern Region for evaluation and\napproval.\nd. Submit documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items\noutlined in this Compliance Order to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern\nRegion, PHMSA, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, New\nJersey 08628.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 26, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":19308}