{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165011","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":"2016-04-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.204, 195.214, 195.214(a), 195.222.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.204,  195.214,  195.214(a),  195.222. The case was opened on 2016-04-28 and is reported as closed as of 2023-01-25. Proposed civil penalty: $1,278,100. Assessed civil penalty: $882,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165011_Closure Letter_01252023_(14-146528S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Closure%20Letter_01252023_(14-146528S).pdf\n\n420165011_Closure Letter_01252023_(14-146528S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Closure%20Letter_01252023_(14-146528S)_text.pdf\n\n420165011_Final Order_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Final%20Order_11152019.pdf\n\n420165011_Final Order_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Final%20Order_11152019_text.pdf\n\n420165011_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016.pdf\n\n420165011_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016_text.pdf\n\n420165011_Operator Pre Hearing Supplemental Letter_10312016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Operator%20Pre%20Hearing%20Supplemental%20Letter_10312016.pdf\n\n420165011_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_05272016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_05272016.pdf\n\n420165011_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 28, 2016\nMr. David Chalson\nVice President of Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n2700 West Passyunk Ave.\nPhiladelphia, PA 19145-BD\nCPF 4-2016-5011\nDear Mr. Chalson:\nBetween May of 2014 to March of 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code inspected your Sunoco Permian Express II Pipeline Construction Project\n(Sunoco, PEX II).\nAs a result of the inspection, 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 violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §195.214 Welding procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler\nand Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to\nqualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the\nqualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure\nis used.\nThe Operator failed to perform welding during the construction of the Permian Express II (PEX\nII) pipeline according to a properly qualified welding procedure.\n(1)The welding procedure initially provided states that it is a renamed legacy procedure. Upon\nfurther review, PHMSA discovered that was not the case. The new procedure specified different\nbase material ranges than the legacy procedure did.\nPHMSA was initially provided with Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) No. SP-\n332Sc-6G Rev. 2 - 10/16/12, as the butt welding procedure being used for construction\nPEX II pipeline. The procedure states it covers pipe material grades “API 5L X65 to X42\nand Below.” The provided procedure indicated it was a retitling of Old Procedure SPL-\n16-6G Rev.: 0 – 11/09/2007. However, Old Procedure SPL-16-6G Rev.: 0 – 11/09/2007\nstates that it is qualified only for pipe grades “API 5L Grade X65 to Grade X60 down to\ngreater than X42.” The qualification range of “API 5L X65 to X42 and Below” in\nprocedure WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G is inconsistent with its predecessor’s “greater than\nX42” range and constitutes a change of an essential variable, the Base Material.\nAPI 1104 states that a welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure\nspecification and must be completely requalified when any of the essential variables\nlisted in 5.4.2 are changed.\n1 The changes in the base materials covered in the new and old\nprocedures constitute a change in essential variables requiring procedure requalification.\nOperators records provides no evidence this was done. Consequently, WPS No. SP-\n332Sc-6G Rev. 2 - 10/16/12 was not the same as the Old Procedure SPL-16-6G Rev. 0 –\n11/09/2007, an consequently not a properly qualified welding procedure.\n1API 1104 (ibr), Section 5.4.2 lists the following as essential variables: Welding Process or Method of\nApplication, Base Material, Joint Design, Position, Wall Thickness, Filler Metal, Electrical Characteristics,\nTime Between Passes, Direction of Welding, Shielding Gas and Flow Rate, Shielding Flux, Speed of\nTravel, Pre-heat, and Post-weld Heat Treatment.\n2\n\n\n\n(2) The procedure initially provided spans all three groups of base materials. That is not allowed\nunder API 1104. Each group of base material is required to be qualified with a separate\nprocedure.\nWPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 - 10/16/12 states that the groups the procedure is qualified\nto weld includes “API 5L X65 to X42 and Below.” API 1104 (ibr) states the following:\n“For the purposes of this standard, all materials shall be grouped as follows:\na. Specified minimum yield strength less than or equal to 42,000 psi (290 MPa).\nb. Specified minimum yield strength greater than 42,000 psi (290 MPa) but less than\n65,000 psi (448 MPa).\nc. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than or equal to 65,000\npsi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate qualification test.”\nA properly qualified welding procedure specification with a range of base materials of\nAPI 5L X65 to X42 and Below would require separate qualifying tests for a base material\nwith a yield strength of 42,000 psi or less, greater than 42,000 psi but less than 65,000\npsi, and separate qualifying tests for each material with a yield strength of 65,000 psi or\ngreater. Sunoco did not perform the tests required to qualify the procedure for the base\nmaterial range specified according to the requirements of API 1104 (ibr) and\nconsequently, the procedure -was not properly qualified to weld a Part 195 pipeline.\n(3) Sunoco did not perform the requisite destructive testing to qualify the groups of base\nmaterials covered by the procedure. Therefore the procedure initially provided by Sunoco is not\na qualified welding procedure.\nSunoco did not perform destructive testing to qualify the WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 -\n10/16/12 procedure as required by API 1104 (ibr). Sunoco relied on the destructive\ntesting performed for SPL-16-6G Rev. 0 – 11/09/2007 to qualify the SP-332Sc-6G\nprocedure. However the legacy welding procedure’s qualification records did not include\nthe full range of destructive testing for the full range of the groups of base materials\ncovered in the SP-332Sc-6G procedure. Further, WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, nor the\nreferenced legacy procedure Old Procedure SPL-16-6G Rev. 0 – 11/09/2007, included\ndestructive tests to substantiate the entire range of base materials the procedure claims to\nhave covered as required by API 1104 (ibr). Therefore SP-332Sc-6G is not a qualified\nwelding procedure according to the requirements of API 1104.\n(4) After PHMSA questioned the validity of the procedure that was initially submitted, Sunoco\noffered two additional revised procedures that were reportedly used on the project instead of the\none that was initially submitted. There is no conclusive evidence that these later substituted\nprocedures were used on the project. More importantly, the two substituted revised procedures\nwere not qualified procedures. None of the procedures offered by Sunoco for the project were\nqualified procedures.\n3\n\n\n\nAfter PHMSA questioned the validity of WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 - 10/16/12,\nSunoco then denied using the procedure to weld the PEX II pipeline and subsequently\nproduced two additional welding procedures they claimed were used to make the\nconstruction butt welds on the project. These were WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 1 –\n05/22/14, and WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 2 – 11/07/14. Both of these subsequent\nsubstitutions reference an entirely different legacy procedure SPL-11-6G (11-26-03) than\nthe one initially provided to PHMSA (SPL-16-6G Rev.: 0 – 11/09/2007 that was\nreferenced by WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 - 10/16/12)\nSubstitution procedure WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 1 – 05/22/14 utilizes the qualification\nrecords for legacy procedure SPL-11-6G (11/26/03). While WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 2\n– 11/07/14 utilizes its own procedure qualification record dated 10-29-14 as the source\nfor destructive testing used to qualify the revised procedure.\nThese substitution procedures were not originally provided to PHMSA as being used to\nweld the PEX II pipeline; there was no evidence that these versions were actually used on\nthe project; the procedure qualification dates are inconsistent with some of the welder\nqualification dates; and the procedures have qualification issues due to inconsistencies or\ninadequacies with some essential variables or required procedure specifications.\nFor example, the welding procedure qualification record for WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev.\n2 11/07/14, shows the actual travel speed for the root pass during the qualification weld\nwas 10 – 12 inches per minute. However, Sunoco indiscriminately increased the range of\ntravel speed for the root pass on the welding procedure specification WPS No. SP-332Sc-\n6G Rev. 2 – 11/07/14 to 6 – 12 inches per minute. Other passes have had similar untested\nexpansions of the range of travel speed. These constitute a change of an essential\nvariable requiring requalification of the procedure.\nAdditionally, WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 1 – 05/22/14 states that time between passes is\n“5 minutes maximum between Root/Hot Pass; Remaining passes as soon as possible.”\nAPI 1104 (ibr), Section 5.3.2.10, requires that “The maximum time between the\ncompletion of the root bead and the start of the second bead, as well as the maximum\ntime between the completion of the second bead and the start of other beads, shall be\ndesignated.” The time between passes of “…Remaining passes as soon as possible.” is\nnot an adequate specification.\nAnother example of not using a qualified procedure for testing of welders and use in\npipeline construction involves Sunoco’s WPS No.: SP-122SLH – BR-7018 Rev 1: 6/6/14\nprocedure. The procedure states it covers \"All\" for the Diameter Group and \"All\" for the\nWall Thickness Group. The procedure record shows it was qualified with \"Grade: API\nX42 / 52 with supporting destructive testing results for only that one grade of material.\nThere was no supporting PQR (destructive testing results) for the actual grade of\nmaterials that the welders tested with or used in the actual construction of the line (X65).\n4\n\n\n\nSunoco’s WPS No.: SP-122SLH – BR-7018 Rev 1 : 6/6/14 also states \" * Procedure\napplies to all pipe grades and thicknesses\" and lists electrode filler materials for the\ncorrespondingly different grades of pipe material. None of the other additional grades\nlisted in the procedure had supporting destructive testing records associated with them,\neither.\nPer the requirements of API 1104, 20th Ed., Section 5.4.1,\n“A welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure specification and\nmust be completely requalified when any of the essential variables listed in 5.4.2 are\nchanged.”\nBeing that a listed essential variable was changed related to Section 5.4.2.2 “Base\nMaterial” a new welding procedure specification should have been established and\ncompletely requalified for use for the X65 material used. Section 5.4.2.2 states “A change\nin base material constitutes an essential variable\" and required Sunoco to produce a\nseparate procedure for the grade of material used in testing and construction (X65) with\nits own destructive testing results documented fully. Without such procedure\nqualification (a separate procedure for the specific grade of base material as required by\nAPI 1104), Sunoco did not have a properly qualified procedure to test welders with or to\ndo mainline production welding with related to WPS No.: SP-122SLH – BR-7018 Rev 1\n: 6/6/14 and its use with X65 materials.\n2. § 195.222 Welders: Qualification of welders.\n(a) Each welder must be qualified in accordance with section 6 of API 1104 (incorporated\nby reference, see§ 195.3) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,\n(incorporated by reference, see§ 195.3) except that a welder qualified under an earlier\nedition than listed in § 195.3 may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.\n(b) No welder may weld with a welding process unless, within the preceding 6 calendar\nmonths, the welder has—\n(1) Engaged in welding with that process; and\n(2) Had one welded tested and found acceptable under section 9 of API 1104\n(incorporated by reference, see§ 195.3).\n[Amdt. 195-81, 69 FR 54593, Sept. 9, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 195-86, 71 FR 33409,\nJune 9, 2006]\n5\n\n\n\nSunoco failed to properly qualify welders used to construct the PEX II pipeline, as required by\nPart 195, API Standard 1104 (ibr) and Sunoco’s procedures. API 1104 (ibr) states “The purpose\nof the welder qualification test is to determine the ability of welders to make sound butt or fillet\nwelds using previously qualified procedures.” The Operator allowed welders to weld on the\nPEX II pipeline construction project despite records showing that they had not welded within the\nwelding procedure specifications during the qualification test. In some cases, the documentation\nwas inadequate to show the welding had been performed according to the welding procedure\nspecifications during the test. Examples of welder qualification test inadequacies include failing\nto weld within the specified electrical ranges (voltage and amperage) specified by the procedure,\nWPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G, failing to perform the welds in the specified number of passes, failing to\ndocument the specific version of the procedure the welders were qualifying to weld, and\nqualification forms that did not accurately state the test parameters such as the weld position.\nIn addition to the errant welder testing practices and inadequate documentation, Sunoco did not\nprovide sufficient supervision and control related to these practices and allowed the unqualified\nwelders to make several thousand welds on the PEX II construction project using WPS No.: SP-\n332Sc-6G. Upon discovery of these errant practices, Sunoco attempted to qualify the welders by\nre-testing them after-the-fact. While this is not consistent with the requirements of Part 195, it is\neven more problematic that some of these welders who had already made production welds on\nthe PEX II pipeline failed to pass the re-test, and in some cases failed multiple qualification\nattempts.\n3. §195.214 Welding procedures\na) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler\nand Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to\nqualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the\nqualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure\nis used.\n§195.204 Inspection – General\nInspection must be provided to ensure the installation of pipe or pipeline systems in\naccordance with the requirements of this subpart. No person may be used to\nperform inspections unless that person has been trained and is qualified in the phase\nof construction to be inspected.\nAs evidenced by their continued construction of a pipeline in the face of known problems with\nboth their welding procedures and the qualifications of their welders, Sunoco failed to ensure the6\n\n\n\nconstruction and inspection of their pipeline in accordance with the requirements of 49 C.F.R.\n195. Sunoco allowed unqualified welders to perform welding during construction activities on\nPEX II, contrary to the requirements of Part 195 and API Standard 1104. Welders made\napproximately 3,000 welds on the PEX II project before it was discovered that that the welder\nqualification testing was not conducted to the requirements Part 195 and API Standard 1104.\nSunoco welder qualification records showed that the welders had not followed the qualified\nwelding procedure, WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G, but were still shown as passing the welder\nqualification tests. When this errant practice was discovered, Sunoco attempted to back-qualify\nwelders through the retesting of welders to welding procedure WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G, of which\nseveral of the welders, who were retested, failed to qualify with multiple retesting attempts.\nThese same failed welders had each participated in the welding of numerous production welds\nprior to attempting requalification.\nSelect production welds made by some of the welders who were not properly qualified were cut\nout of the pipeline and destructively tested. Some of these cutouts also failed to pass the API\n1104 destructive testing for welder qualification but Sunoco took no further actions to discover\nand test additional welds made by unqualified welders on the PEX II project that may not have\nthe required strength and mechanical properties. Sunoco’s attempt to “back-qualify” welders to\nwelding procedure WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G demonstrates that the Operator recognized the\ndeficiency but did not take appropriate measures to achieve compliance.\n4. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive\nwritten specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this\npart.\n§195.214 Welding procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler\nand Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to\nqualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.\nSunoco failed to follow its own written specifications related to the “requalification of welders”\nin their attempt to qualify its welders after the fact. Sunoco’s “Specification for Welder\nPerformance Qualification, SPL-102, Revision 4, October 6, 2012, Section 6.0, Retesting” states\nthe following:\n\"6.0 RETESTING\nIf, in the opinion of the company welding inspector, a welder fails to pass the\nqualification test because of unavoidable conditions or conditions beyond his control, the\nwelder may be given a second opportunity to qualify. Should the welder fail the second\n7\n\n\n\ntest, no further retests shall be given until the welder has submitted proof of subsequent\nwelder training that is acceptable to the Company.\"\nOver 20 of the 37 welders reviewed were found to not have been properly qualified by the\nrecords presented, which did not properly detail the qualification test data for each welder as\nrequired by API 1104. Of the 37 welders, some were no longer working on the project or had\nbeen terminated. However, at the time of the inspections only 10 of the welders (out of the 37\nidentified) that had not been properly qualified continued to weld on the PEX II pipeline and\nwere administered additional qualification tests “after the fact.” Two of these welders failed\nthese qualification tests, and were allowed to immediately (the same day) re-test for a third time\nwithout submitting proof of subsequent welder training as required by Sunoco’s specifications.\nNot only did Sunoco fail to properly qualify welders before allowing to weld on the PEX II\nproject, as required by Part 195, but made multiple attempts to qualify welders after they had\nalready made welds on the PEX II pipeline project in violation of Part 195 and Sunoco’s\nspecifications.\n5. §195.222 Welders: Qualification of welders\n(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6\nor 12 of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3) or with Section IX of\nASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see\n§195.3), except that a welder qualified under an earlier edition than listed in §195.3\nmay weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.\n(b) No welder may weld with a welding process unless, within the preceding 6\ncalendar months, the welder has—\n(1) Engaged in welding with that process; and\n(2) Had one weld tested and found acceptable under section 9 or Appendix A of\nAPI Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\n§195.204 Inspection – General\nInspection must be provided to ensure the installation of pipe or pipeline systems in\naccordance with the requirements of this subpart. No person may be used to\nperform inspections unless that person has been trained and is qualified in the phase\nof construction to be inspected\nAs evidenced by their start-and-stop efforts to post-qualify welders in the face of known\nshortcomings in both their welding procedures and the qualifications of their welders, Sunoco\nfailed to ensure the construction of their pipeline in accordance with the requirements of 49\nC.F.R. 195. Sunoco attempted to post-qualify welders after they had performed several thousand\nwelds on Spread 24-3 through re-administering welder qualification tests. Further, Sunoco used a\nmodified version of a procedure with expanded welding parameter ranges in order to attempt to\nqualify welds made by these welders on the pipeline (welds made questionable as to being\nsuitable for service). By expanding the electrical parameters, the modified procedure can be said\n8\n\n\n\nnot to have been the original procedure used to test the welders or used to make the previous\nconstruction welds.\nAfter Sunoco determined that unqualified welders had been allowed to perform welding on the\nPEXII, the Operator made a limited attempt to determine if welds made by improperly qualified\nwelders who were no longer on the job had the required strength and mechanical properties.\nThis was done by cutting out and destructive testing of a small sample of girth welds made by\nsome of the welders. Some of the cutouts failed the API 1104 destructive testing criteria\nrequired to qualify a welder. By allowing welders who were not properly qualified according to\nthe requirements of API 1104 to weld on the PEXII project and then having a small select\nsample of welds made by these welders fail destructive testing, all of the welds on Spread 24-3\nof the PEX II project are suspect as to whether they meet the required strength and mechanical\nproperties as required by the design of this pipeline.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\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 $1,278,100 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $119,500\n2 $149,700\n3 $613,400\n4 $51,400\n5 $344,100\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item numbers 1 and 2, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline\nand Hazardous 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.\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. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If9\n\n\n\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-5011 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n10\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 [Company name] a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of [Company name]\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice, Sunoco must correct all welding\nprocedures to reflect the proper qualifications for each grade of materials, filler\nmetals and other changes in essential variables and welding parameters, reflect proper\nversioning for any changes and provide the PHMSA Southwest Region Director\nrevised procedures and complete destructive testing records for each procedure. The\nprocedures cannot be used on any other construction project or Part 195 regulated\npiping until all corrections are made and accepted by the PHMSA Southwest Region\nDirector.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, Sunoco must perform destructive tests on a\nstatistically significant number of girth welds on Spread 24-3 to show that the welds\nhave the required strength and mechanical properties for the application. The\nproposed testing plan must include specific designation of the welds to be tested, the\nanalysis showing that the number of welds to be tested is statistically significant\nbased on the total number of welds made, the procedures that Sunoco proposes to be\nused to cut out and test the welds, and the qualified welding procedure that will be\nused to re-weld the pipeline. The proposed testing plan must be submitted to the\nPHMSA Southwest Region director for approval prior to initiating the plan. If any of\nthese welds fail destructive testing, the number of welds tested must be expanded as\nspecified by the Southwest Region Director to include an additional number of welds\nmade by that welder.\nIn addition, Sunoco must review welder qualification testing on all the other\nconstruction spreads on the PEXII pipeline to determine if there were similar\ninstances of unqualified welders performing welding during construction. Evidence in\nthe form of properly completed welder qualification records showing that all welders\nwere qualified to a previously qualified welding procedure must be submitted to\nPHMSA. If any issues with welder qualification are identified, the welds made by\nthose welders must be tested to determine if the welds meet the qualification and\nmechanical characteristics required for the project in a manner similar to the process\ndescribed in the previous paragraph. The testing plan to be approved by the PHMSA\nSouthwest Region Director must also include a specific process for the detailed\nreview of welder qualification records on all of the other construction spreads on the\nPEX II project. If any other welders are determined to have been not been properly\nqualified, Sunoco must submit an amended test plan for approval by the Southwest\nRegion Director, to identify welds that made by these welders and destructively test a\nstatistically significant sample of these welds in a manner similar to describe in the\nparagraph above. If any of these welds fail destructive testing, the number of welds11\n\n\n\ntested must be expanded as specified by the Southwest Region Director to include an\nadditional number of welds made by that welder.\n4. Provide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of Item 1 within 30\ndays following the date of the Final Order. Submit the testing plan described in Item\n2 for approval by the Southwest Region Director within 30 days following the date of\nthe Final Order and documentation showing completion of the testing and weld\nrepairs within 120 days following approval of the plan by the Southwest Region\nDirector.\n5. It is requested (not mandated) that Sunoco Pipeline L.P. maintain documentation of\nthe safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n12\n\n420165011_Final Order_11152019_text.pdf\n\nNovember 15, 2019\nMr. Kelcy L. Warren\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5011\nDear Mr. Warren:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of\nthe allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of\n$882,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Sunoco Pipeline, LP, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Todd Nardozzi, Senior Manager - DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP, 1300\nMain Street, Houston, Texas 77002\nMr. Kevin Dunleavy, Esq., Chief Counsel, Sunoco Pipeline, LP, 3807 West Chester Pike,\nNewtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5011\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May of 2014 through March of 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Permian Express II (PEX II)\npipeline being constructed by Sunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent), from West Texas to\na tank facility in Corsicana, Texas near the Gulf of Mexico.1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP operates over\n4,500 miles of crude oil, refined petroleum, and highly volatile liquids pipelines across several\nstates between Texas and Massachusetts and is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 28, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).3 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 assessing a total civil penalty of $1,278,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct two of the alleged violations.\nSunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated May 27, 2016 (Response). Sunoco contested the\nallegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on November 10, 2016, in\nHouston, Texas, before a PHMSA Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was\nrepresented by counsel. Respondent provided additional written materials for the record prior to\nthe hearing by letter dated October 31, 2016 (Pre-hearing submission) and following the hearing\nby letter dated December 12, 2016 (Post-hearing submission). The Director submitted a post-\nhearing recommendation on November 20, 2018.\n1 Permian Express II Pipeline Project, available at http://sxlpipelineprojects.com/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2014/03/permian-factsheet-jan30-2014.pdf (last accessed October 4, 2019).\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 27, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1; Energy\nTransfer, LP website, available at https://www.sunocologistics.com/ (last accessed October 4, 2019).\n3 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, CPF No. 4-2016-5011,\n(Notice)(April 28, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5011\nPage 2\nFINDINGS 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. § 195.214, which states:\n§ 195.214 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding\noperator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,\nsection 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3), or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure\nVessel Code (ASME BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The\nquality of the test welds used to qualify the welding procedures must be\ndetermined by destructive testing.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the\nresults of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed\nwhenever the procedure is used.4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 by failing to perform welding\nin accordance with a welding procedure qualified under section 5, section 12, Appendix A or\nAppendix B of API Std. 1104, or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code\nduring the construction of the PEX II pipeline.5 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco\nperformed welding using a new base material, X65 grade pipe, and that under API 1104 this\nchange is an essential variable required welding procedure requalification which Respondent did\nnot accomplish prior to commencing the welding.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Sunoco disagreed that any violation had occurred. Sunoco\nacknowledged that the SP-332Sc-6G welding procedure specified by OPS in the Notice as the\nbasis for the alleged violation dated October 6, 2012 (Version 1), pertained to welding grade X60\npipe to grade X65 pipe, not grade X65 to X65, but stated that there was a second version of\nwelding procedure SP-332Sc-6G dated May 22, 2014, that was relevant to this Item and Item 2\n(Version 2).6 Respondent further stated that there was also a third version of welding procedure\nSP-332Sc-6G dated November 7, 2014, that was relevant to the requalification issue in Item 3\n(Version 3). Respondent stated that Version 2 had been used on the project, that it believed this\nprocedure was properly qualified, and that the Version 1 procedure provided to the OPS\ninspector during the field inspection was erroneously provided by Respondent’s personnel who\nwere in charge of the construction project in the field.\nSunoco explained that the welding procedure originally provided to OPS, Version 1, references a\nlegacy Procedure SPL-16-6G, dated November 9, 2007. Version 2 was developed from a\ndifferent legacy procedure SPL-11-6G, dated November 26, 2003. Version 2 was designated for\nAPI 5L X-65 pipe, exclusively. Respondent provided records and other evidence showing that\n4 This regulation was amended on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7999). The version cited is the regulation that was in\nplace at the time this proceeding commenced, not the amended version.\n5 Both of these standards are incorporated by reference into Part 195 (see 49 C.F.R. § 195.3).\n6 Post-hearing submission, at 5-6.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5011\nPage 3\nVersion 2 uses the qualification testing results of its legacy procedure, and that the X65 grade\npipe referenced in Version 2 is consistent with that of the legacy procedure and the X65 grade\npipe used during the PEX II pipeline construction. Even assuming Respondent is correct on this\npoint, however, it is not material to the question of which version of the welding procedure was\nobserved as being used in the field. Respondent acknowledged that Version 2 was not provided\nduring the initial field inspections and only Version 1 was provided to OPS by PHMSA\nRespondent’s personnel who were in charge of the construction project in the field.7\nDuring the hearing, the OPS inspector stated:\nMR. ENG: Okay. I just wanted to be clear that, yes, one of the office\nmanagers did assist in obtaining all the different records and variations of\nthis procedure, Ms. Jennifer Thompson, but it was also under the direct\ninsight and supervision of the construction manager, Mr. Mark Grass, and\nthe new chief welding inspector that was put on a week before my arrival,\nMr. Barry Leray.\nAnd so, what originally I asked for in determining the qualification of\nthe procedure, was a copy of the procedure. What was provided to me at\nthat time by all three people during those discussions, was WPS SP332-6G\nRev. 2. And that would have been dated October 6, 2012. Okay? We're\ngoing to call this version one, because that's what was given to me.\nWhen we look at that particular procedure, that succession from what\nthey call the old procedure, SPL-16-HG [verbatim], I reviewed it and the\npipe grade test material wasn't 65 to 65 as originally shown. And so, I said,\n\"Well, what actually the test grade materials was, was 65 to 60.\"And they\nsaid, \"Well, this is the procedure we've been using to qualify our welders\nand what we've been using out in the field.\"\nSo subsequent to that, they provided, after numerous discussions,\nanother procedure at a later date was produced and it was called the same\ntitle, except it was called Rev. 1, but it had a later date. It had the May 22,\n2014 date, but it -- it did have 4 the 65 to 65. And I said, \"Well, this is --\nthis is different, it's later, which one did you actually use?\" And so, there\nwas some confusion as to who had what in the field.\nAnd then what further complicates things, is the version 3 that they did\nwith Hamilton Engineering on November 11, 2014, they also have titled it\n\"Rev. 2\" again. And so, that made it very, very complicated in the field\ntrying to determine who had what version of what, because some people\nhave Rev. 2, some people have the original Rev. 2, some people had Rev.\n1, which was actually the second version. And so, we went by what the\nproject manager and chief welding inspector told us that they had been using\nup to that point of that inspection to conduct welding on the pipeline and do\ntheir testing.\n7 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5011\nPage 4\nAnd I ","truncated":true,"body_characters":80868}