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

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

Official case documents:

420165011_Closure Letter_01252023_(14-146528S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Closure%20Letter_01252023_(14-146528S).pdf

420165011_Closure Letter_01252023_(14-146528S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Closure%20Letter_01252023_(14-146528S)_text.pdf

420165011_Final Order_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Final%20Order_11152019.pdf

420165011_Final Order_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Final%20Order_11152019_text.pdf

420165011_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016.pdf

420165011_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04282016_text.pdf

420165011_Operator Pre Hearing Supplemental Letter_10312016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165011/420165011_Operator%20Pre%20Hearing%20Supplemental%20Letter_10312016.pdf

420165011_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

420165011_NOPV PCP PCO_04282016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 28, 2016
Mr. David Chalson
Vice President of Operations
Sunoco Pipeline L.P.
2700 West Passyunk Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19145-BD
CPF 4-2016-5011
Dear Mr. Chalson:
Between May of 2014 to March of 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code inspected your Sunoco Permian Express II Pipeline Construction Project
(Sunoco, PEX II).
As a result of the inspection, 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 violations are:



1. §195.214 Welding procedures
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding
procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to
qualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the
qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure
is used.
The Operator failed to perform welding during the construction of the Permian Express II (PEX
II) pipeline according to a properly qualified welding procedure.
(1)The welding procedure initially provided states that it is a renamed legacy procedure. Upon
further review, PHMSA discovered that was not the case. The new procedure specified different
base material ranges than the legacy procedure did.
PHMSA was initially provided with Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) No. SP-
332Sc-6G Rev. 2 - 10/16/12, as the butt welding procedure being used for construction
PEX II pipeline. The procedure states it covers pipe material grades “API 5L X65 to X42
and Below.” The provided procedure indicated it was a retitling of Old Procedure SPL-
16-6G Rev.: 0 – 11/09/2007. However, Old Procedure SPL-16-6G Rev.: 0 – 11/09/2007
states that it is qualified only for pipe grades “API 5L Grade X65 to Grade X60 down to
greater than X42.” The qualification range of “API 5L X65 to X42 and Below” in
procedure WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G is inconsistent with its predecessor’s “greater than
X42” range and constitutes a change of an essential variable, the Base Material.
API 1104 states that a welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure
specification and must be completely requalified when any of the essential variables
listed in 5.4.2 are changed.
1 The changes in the base materials covered in the new and old
procedures constitute a change in essential variables requiring procedure requalification.
Operators records provides no evidence this was done. Consequently, WPS No. SP-
332Sc-6G Rev. 2 - 10/16/12 was not the same as the Old Procedure SPL-16-6G Rev. 0 –
11/09/2007, an consequently not a properly qualified welding procedure.
1API 1104 (ibr), Section 5.4.2 lists the following as essential variables: Welding Process or Method of
Application, Base Material, Joint Design, Position, Wall Thickness, Filler Metal, Electrical Characteristics,
Time Between Passes, Direction of Welding, Shielding Gas and Flow Rate, Shielding Flux, Speed of
Travel, Pre-heat, and Post-weld Heat Treatment.
2



(2) The procedure initially provided spans all three groups of base materials. That is not allowed
under API 1104. Each group of base material is required to be qualified with a separate
procedure.
WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 - 10/16/12 states that the groups the procedure is qualified
to weld includes “API 5L X65 to X42 and Below.” API 1104 (ibr) states the following:
“For the purposes of this standard, all materials shall be grouped as follows:
a. Specified minimum yield strength less than or equal to 42,000 psi (290 MPa).
b. Specified minimum yield strength greater than 42,000 psi (290 MPa) but less than
65,000 psi (448 MPa).
c. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than or equal to 65,000
psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate qualification test.”
A properly qualified welding procedure specification with a range of base materials of
API 5L X65 to X42 and Below would require separate qualifying tests for a base material
with a yield strength of 42,000 psi or less, greater than 42,000 psi but less than 65,000
psi, and separate qualifying tests for each material with a yield strength of 65,000 psi or
greater. Sunoco did not perform the tests required to qualify the procedure for the base
material range specified according to the requirements of API 1104 (ibr) and
consequently, the procedure -was not properly qualified to weld a Part 195 pipeline.
(3) Sunoco did not perform the requisite destructive testing to qualify the groups of base
materials covered by the procedure. Therefore the procedure initially provided by Sunoco is not
a qualified welding procedure.
Sunoco did not perform destructive testing to qualify the WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 -
10/16/12 procedure as required by API 1104 (ibr). Sunoco relied on the destructive
testing performed for SPL-16-6G Rev. 0 – 11/09/2007 to qualify the SP-332Sc-6G
procedure. However the legacy welding procedure’s qualification records did not include
the full range of destructive testing for the full range of the groups of base materials
covered in the SP-332Sc-6G procedure. Further, WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, nor the
referenced legacy procedure Old Procedure SPL-16-6G Rev. 0 – 11/09/2007, included
destructive tests to substantiate the entire range of base materials the procedure claims to
have covered as required by API 1104 (ibr). Therefore SP-332Sc-6G is not a qualified
welding procedure according to the requirements of API 1104.
(4) After PHMSA questioned the validity of the procedure that was initially submitted, Sunoco
offered two additional revised procedures that were reportedly used on the project instead of the
one that was initially submitted. There is no conclusive evidence that these later substituted
procedures were used on the project. More importantly, the two substituted revised procedures
were not qualified procedures. None of the procedures offered by Sunoco for the project were
qualified procedures.
3



After PHMSA questioned the validity of WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 - 10/16/12,
Sunoco then denied using the procedure to weld the PEX II pipeline and subsequently
produced two additional welding procedures they claimed were used to make the
construction butt welds on the project. These were WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 1 –
05/22/14, and WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 2 – 11/07/14. Both of these subsequent
substitutions reference an entirely different legacy procedure SPL-11-6G (11-26-03) than
the one initially provided to PHMSA (SPL-16-6G Rev.: 0 – 11/09/2007 that was
referenced by WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G, Rev. 2 - 10/16/12)
Substitution procedure WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 1 – 05/22/14 utilizes the qualification
records for legacy procedure SPL-11-6G (11/26/03). While WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 2
– 11/07/14 utilizes its own procedure qualification record dated 10-29-14 as the source
for destructive testing used to qualify the revised procedure.
These substitution procedures were not originally provided to PHMSA as being used to
weld the PEX II pipeline; there was no evidence that these versions were actually used on
the project; the procedure qualification dates are inconsistent with some of the welder
qualification dates; and the procedures have qualification issues due to inconsistencies or
inadequacies with some essential variables or required procedure specifications.
For example, the welding procedure qualification record for WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev.
2 11/07/14, shows the actual travel speed for the root pass during the qualification weld
was 10 – 12 inches per minute. However, Sunoco indiscriminately increased the range of
travel speed for the root pass on the welding procedure specification WPS No. SP-332Sc-
6G Rev. 2 – 11/07/14 to 6 – 12 inches per minute. Other passes have had similar untested
expansions of the range of travel speed. These constitute a change of an essential
variable requiring requalification of the procedure.
Additionally, WPS No. SP-332Sc-6G Rev. 1 – 05/22/14 states that time between passes is
“5 minutes maximum between Root/Hot Pass; Remaining passes as soon as possible.”
API 1104 (ibr), Section 5.3.2.10, requires that “The maximum time between the
completion of the root bead and the start of the second bead, as well as the maximum
time between the completion of the second bead and the start of other beads, shall be
designated.” The time between passes of “…Remaining passes as soon as possible.” is
not an adequate specification.
Another example of not using a qualified procedure for testing of welders and use in
pipeline construction involves Sunoco’s WPS No.: SP-122SLH – BR-7018 Rev 1: 6/6/14
procedure. The procedure states it covers "All" for the Diameter Group and "All" for the
Wall Thickness Group. The procedure record shows it was qualified with "Grade: API
X42 / 52 with supporting destructive testing results for only that one grade of material.
There was no supporting PQR (destructive testing results) for the actual grade of
materials that the welders tested with or used in the actual construction of the line (X65).
4



Sunoco’s WPS No.: SP-122SLH – BR-7018 Rev 1 : 6/6/14 also states " * Procedure
applies to all pipe grades and thicknesses" and lists electrode filler materials for the
correspondingly different grades of pipe material. None of the other additional grades
listed in the procedure had supporting destructive testing records associated with them,
either.
Per the requirements of API 1104, 20th Ed., Section 5.4.1,
“A welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure specification and
must be completely requalified when any of the essential variables listed in 5.4.2 are
changed.”
Being that a listed essential variable was changed related to Section 5.4.2.2 “Base
Material” a new welding procedure specification should have been established and
completely requalified for use for the X65 material used. Section 5.4.2.2 states “A change
in base material constitutes an essential variable" and required Sunoco to produce a
separate procedure for the grade of material used in testing and construction (X65) with
its own destructive testing results documented fully. Without such procedure
qualification (a separate procedure for the specific grade of base material as required by
API 1104), Sunoco did not have a properly qualified procedure to test welders with or to
do mainline production welding with related to WPS No.: SP-122SLH – BR-7018 Rev 1
: 6/6/14 and its use with X65 materials.
2. § 195.222 Welders: Qualification of welders.
(a) Each welder must be qualified in accordance with section 6 of API 1104 (incorporated
by reference, see§ 195.3) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
(incorporated by reference, see§ 195.3) except that a welder qualified under an earlier
edition than listed in § 195.3 may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.
(b) No welder may weld with a welding process unless, within the preceding 6 calendar
months, the welder has—
(1) Engaged in welding with that process; and
(2) Had one welded tested and found acceptable under section 9 of API 1104
(incorporated by reference, see§ 195.3).
[Amdt. 195-81, 69 FR 54593, Sept. 9, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 195-86, 71 FR 33409,
June 9, 2006]
5



Sunoco failed to properly qualify welders used to construct the PEX II pipeline, as required by
Part 195, API Standard 1104 (ibr) and Sunoco’s procedures. API 1104 (ibr) states “The purpose
of the welder qualification test is to determine the ability of welders to make sound butt or fillet
welds using previously qualified procedures.” The Operator allowed welders to weld on the
PEX II pipeline construction project despite records showing that they had not welded within the
welding procedure specifications during the qualification test. In some cases, the documentation
was inadequate to show the welding had been performed according to the welding procedure
specifications during the test. Examples of welder qualification test inadequacies include failing
to weld within the specified electrical ranges (voltage and amperage) specified by the procedure,
WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G, failing to perform the welds in the specified number of passes, failing to
document the specific version of the procedure the welders were qualifying to weld, and
qualification forms that did not accurately state the test parameters such as the weld position.
In addition to the errant welder testing practices and inadequate documentation, Sunoco did not
provide sufficient supervision and control related to these practices and allowed the unqualified
welders to make several thousand welds on the PEX II construction project using WPS No.: SP-
332Sc-6G. Upon discovery of these errant practices, Sunoco attempted to qualify the welders by
re-testing them after-the-fact. While this is not consistent with the requirements of Part 195, it is
even more problematic that some of these welders who had already made production welds on
the PEX II pipeline failed to pass the re-test, and in some cases failed multiple qualification
attempts.
3. §195.214 Welding procedures
a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding
procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to
qualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the
qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure
is used.
§195.204 Inspection – General
Inspection must be provided to ensure the installation of pipe or pipeline systems in
accordance with the requirements of this subpart. No person may be used to
perform inspections unless that person has been trained and is qualified in the phase
of construction to be inspected.
As evidenced by their continued construction of a pipeline in the face of known problems with
both their welding procedures and the qualifications of their welders, Sunoco failed to ensure the6



construction and inspection of their pipeline in accordance with the requirements of 49 C.F.R.
195. Sunoco allowed unqualified welders to perform welding during construction activities on
PEX II, contrary to the requirements of Part 195 and API Standard 1104. Welders made
approximately 3,000 welds on the PEX II project before it was discovered that that the welder
qualification testing was not conducted to the requirements Part 195 and API Standard 1104.
Sunoco welder qualification records showed that the welders had not followed the qualified
welding procedure, WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G, but were still shown as passing the welder
qualification tests. When this errant practice was discovered, Sunoco attempted to back-qualify
welders through the retesting of welders to welding procedure WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G, of which
several of the welders, who were retested, failed to qualify with multiple retesting attempts.
These same failed welders had each participated in the welding of numerous production welds
prior to attempting requalification.
Select production welds made by some of the welders who were not properly qualified were cut
out of the pipeline and destructively tested. Some of these cutouts also failed to pass the API
1104 destructive testing for welder qualification but Sunoco took no further actions to discover
and test additional welds made by unqualified welders on the PEX II project that may not have
the required strength and mechanical properties. Sunoco’s attempt to “back-qualify” welders to
welding procedure WPS No.: SP-332Sc-6G demonstrates that the Operator recognized the
deficiency but did not take appropriate measures to achieve compliance.
4. §195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.
Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive
written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this
part.
§195.214 Welding procedures
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding
procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to
qualify the welding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.
Sunoco failed to follow its own written specifications related to the “requalification of welders”
in their attempt to qualify its welders after the fact. Sunoco’s “Specification for Welder
Performance Qualification, SPL-102, Revision 4, October 6, 2012, Section 6.0, Retesting” states
the following:
"6.0 RETESTING
If, in the opinion of the company welding inspector, a welder fails to pass the
qualification test because of unavoidable conditions or conditions beyond his control, the
welder may be given a second opportunity to qualify. Should the welder fail the second
7



test, no further retests shall be given until the welder has submitted proof of subsequent
welder training that is acceptable to the Company."
Over 20 of the 37 welders reviewed were found to not have been properly qualified by the
records presented, which did not properly detail the qualification test data for each welder as
required by API 1104. Of the 37 welders, some were no longer working on the project or had
been terminated. However, at the time of the inspections only 10 of the welders (out of the 37
identified) that had not been properly qualified continued to weld on the PEX II pipeline and
were administered additional qualification tests “after the fact.” Two of these welders failed
these qualification tests, and were allowed to immediately (the same day) re-test for a third time
without submitting proof of subsequent welder training as required by Sunoco’s specifications.
Not only did Sunoco fail to properly qualify welders before allowing to weld on the PEX II
project, as required by Part 195, but made multiple attempts to qualify welders after they had
already made welds on the PEX II pipeline project in violation of Part 195 and Sunoco’s
specifications.
5. §195.222 Welders: Qualification of welders
(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6
or 12 of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3) or with Section IX of
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see
§195.3), except that a welder qualified under an earlier edition than listed in §195.3
may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.
(b) No welder may weld with a welding process unless, within the preceding 6
calendar months, the welder has—
(1) Engaged in welding with that process; and
(2) Had one weld tested and found acceptable under section 9 or Appendix A of
API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
§195.204 Inspection – General
Inspection must be provided to ensure the installation of pipe or pipeline systems in
accordance with the requirements of this subpart. No person may be used to
perform inspections unless that person has been trained and is qualified in the phase
of construction to be inspected
As evidenced by their start-and-stop efforts to post-qualify welders in the face of known
shortcomings in both their welding procedures and the qualifications of their welders, Sunoco
failed to ensure the construction of their pipeline in accordance with the requirements of 49
C.F.R. 195. Sunoco attempted to post-qualify welders after they had performed several thousand
welds on Spread 24-3 through re-administering welder qualification tests. Further, Sunoco used a
modified version of a procedure with expanded welding parameter ranges in order to attempt to
qualify welds made by these welders on the pipeline (welds made questionable as to being
suitable for service). By expanding the electrical parameters, the modified procedure can be said
8



not to have been the original procedure used to test the welders or used to make the previous
construction welds.
After Sunoco determined that unqualified welders had been allowed to perform welding on the
PEXII, the Operator made a limited attempt to determine if welds made by improperly qualified
welders who were no longer on the job had the required strength and mechanical properties.
This was done by cutting out and destructive testing of a small sample of girth welds made by
some of the welders. Some of the cutouts failed the API 1104 destructive testing criteria
required to qualify a welder. By allowing welders who were not properly qualified according to
the requirements of API 1104 to weld on the PEXII project and then having a small select
sample of welds made by these welders fail destructive testing, all of the welds on Spread 24-3
of the PEX II project are suspect as to whether they meet the required strength and mechanical
properties as required by the design of this pipeline.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000
per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of
violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not
exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a
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 $1,278,100 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $119,500
2 $149,700
3 $613,400
4 $51,400
5 $344,100
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item numbers 1 and 2, 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.
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. All
material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If9



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 4-2016-5011 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
10



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to [Company name] a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of [Company name]
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice, Sunoco must correct all welding
procedures to reflect the proper qualifications for each grade of materials, filler
metals and other changes in essential variables and welding parameters, reflect proper
versioning for any changes and provide the PHMSA Southwest Region Director
revised procedures and complete destructive testing records for each procedure. The
procedures cannot be used on any other construction project or Part 195 regulated
piping until all corrections are made and accepted by the PHMSA Southwest Region
Director.
2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, Sunoco must perform destructive tests on a
statistically significant number of girth welds on Spread 24-3 to show that the welds
have the required strength and mechanical properties for the application. The
proposed testing plan must include specific designation of the welds to be tested, the
analysis showing that the number of welds to be tested is statistically significant
based on the total number of welds made, the procedures that Sunoco proposes to be
used to cut out and test the welds, and the qualified welding procedure that will be
used to re-weld the pipeline. The proposed testing plan must be submitted to the
PHMSA Southwest Region director for approval prior to initiating the plan. If any of
these welds fail destructive testing, the number of welds tested must be expanded as
specified by the Southwest Region Director to include an additional number of welds
made by that welder.
In addition, Sunoco must review welder qualification testing on all the other
construction spreads on the PEXII pipeline to determine if there were similar
instances of unqualified welders performing welding during construction. Evidence in
the form of properly completed welder qualification records showing that all welders
were qualified to a previously qualified welding procedure must be submitted to
PHMSA. If any issues with welder qualification are identified, the welds made by
those welders must be tested to determine if the welds meet the qualification and
mechanical characteristics required for the project in a manner similar to the process
described in the previous paragraph. The testing plan to be approved by the PHMSA
Southwest Region Director must also include a specific process for the detailed
review of welder qualification records on all of the other construction spreads on the
PEX II project. If any other welders are determined to have been not been properly
qualified, Sunoco must submit an amended test plan for approval by the Southwest
Region Director, to identify welds that made by these welders and destructively test a
statistically significant sample of these welds in a manner similar to describe in the
paragraph above. If any of these welds fail destructive testing, the number of welds11



tested must be expanded as specified by the Southwest Region Director to include an
additional number of welds made by that welder.
4. Provide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of Item 1 within 30
days following the date of the Final Order. Submit the testing plan described in Item
2 for approval by the Southwest Region Director within 30 days following the date of
the Final Order and documentation showing completion of the testing and weld
repairs within 120 days following approval of the plan by the Southwest Region
Director.
5. It is requested (not mandated) that Sunoco Pipeline L.P. maintain documentation of
the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and
submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs 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.
12

420165011_Final Order_11152019_text.pdf

November 15, 2019
Mr. Kelcy L. Warren
Chief Executive Officer
Energy Transfer, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas 75225
Re: CPF No. 4-2016-5011
Dear Mr. Warren:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of
the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of
$882,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Sunoco Pipeline, LP, 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, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Todd Nardozzi, Senior Manager - DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP, 1300
Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002
Mr. Kevin Dunleavy, Esq., Chief Counsel, Sunoco Pipeline, LP, 3807 West Chester Pike,
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Sunoco Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5011
a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
From May of 2014 through March of 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Permian Express II (PEX II)
pipeline being constructed by Sunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent), from West Texas to
a tank facility in Corsicana, Texas near the Gulf of Mexico.1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP operates over
4,500 miles of crude oil, refined petroleum, and highly volatile liquids pipelines across several
states between Texas and Massachusetts and is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 28, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).3 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 assessing a total civil penalty of $1,278,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct two of the alleged violations.
Sunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated May 27, 2016 (Response). Sunoco contested the
allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on November 10, 2016, in
Houston, Texas, before a PHMSA Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was
represented by counsel. Respondent provided additional written materials for the record prior to
the hearing by letter dated October 31, 2016 (Pre-hearing submission) and following the hearing
by letter dated December 12, 2016 (Post-hearing submission). The Director submitted a post-
hearing recommendation on November 20, 2018.
1 Permian Express II Pipeline Project, available at http://sxlpipelineprojects.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/permian-factsheet-jan30-2014.pdf (last accessed October 4, 2019).
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 27, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1; Energy
Transfer, LP website, available at https://www.sunocologistics.com/ (last accessed October 4, 2019).
3 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, CPF No. 4-2016-5011,
(Notice)(April 28, 2016).



CPF No. 4-2016-5011
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which states:
§ 195.214 Welding procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding
operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5,
section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3), or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The
quality of the test welds used to qualify the welding procedures must be
determined by destructive testing.
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the
results of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed
whenever the procedure is used.4
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 by failing to perform welding
in accordance with a welding procedure qualified under section 5, section 12, Appendix A or
Appendix B of API Std. 1104, or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
during the construction of the PEX II pipeline.5 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco
performed welding using a new base material, X65 grade pipe, and that under API 1104 this
change is an essential variable required welding procedure requalification which Respondent did
not accomplish prior to commencing the welding.
In its Response and at the hearing, Sunoco disagreed that any violation had occurred. Sunoco
acknowledged that the SP-332Sc-6G welding procedure specified by OPS in the Notice as the
basis for the alleged violation dated October 6, 2012 (Version 1), pertained to welding grade X60
pipe to grade X65 pipe, not grade X65 to X65, but stated that there was a second version of
welding procedure SP-332Sc-6G dated May 22, 2014, that was relevant to this Item and Item 2
(Version 2).6 Respondent further stated that there was also a third version of welding procedure
SP-332Sc-6G dated November 7, 2014, that was relevant to the requalification issue in Item 3
(Version 3). Respondent stated that Version 2 had been used on the project, that it believed this
procedure was properly qualified, and that the Version 1 procedure provided to the OPS
inspector during the field inspection was erroneously provided by Respondent’s personnel who
were in charge of the construction project in the field.
Sunoco explained that the welding procedure originally provided to OPS, Version 1, references a
legacy Procedure SPL-16-6G, dated November 9, 2007. Version 2 was developed from a
different legacy procedure SPL-11-6G, dated November 26, 2003. Version 2 was designated for
API 5L X-65 pipe, exclusively. Respondent provided records and other evidence showing that
4 This regulation was amended on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7999). The version cited is the regulation that was in
place at the time this proceeding commenced, not the amended version.
5 Both of these standards are incorporated by reference into Part 195 (see 49 C.F.R. § 195.3).
6 Post-hearing submission, at 5-6.



CPF No. 4-2016-5011
Page 3
Version 2 uses the qualification testing results of its legacy procedure, and that the X65 grade
pipe referenced in Version 2 is consistent with that of the legacy procedure and the X65 grade
pipe used during the PEX II pipeline construction. Even assuming Respondent is correct on this
point, however, it is not material to the question of which version of the welding procedure was
observed as being used in the field. Respondent acknowledged that Version 2 was not provided
during the initial field inspections and only Version 1 was provided to OPS by PHMSA
Respondent’s personnel who were in charge of the construction project in the field.7
During the hearing, the OPS inspector stated:
MR. ENG: Okay. I just wanted to be clear that, yes, one of the office
managers did assist in obtaining all the different records and variations of
this procedure, Ms. Jennifer Thompson, but it was also under the direct
insight and supervision of the construction manager, Mr. Mark Grass, and
the new chief welding inspector that was put on a week before my arrival,
Mr. Barry Leray.
And so, what originally I asked for in determining the qualification of
the procedure, was a copy of the procedure. What was provided to me at
that time by all three people during those discussions, was WPS SP332-6G
Rev. 2. And that would have been dated October 6, 2012. Okay? We're
going to call this version one, because that's what was given to me.
When we look at that particular procedure, that succession from what
they call the old procedure, SPL-16-HG [verbatim], I reviewed it and the
pipe grade test material wasn't 65 to 65 as originally shown. And so, I said,
"Well, what actually the test grade materials was, was 65 to 60."And they
said, "Well, this is the procedure we've been using to qualify our welders
and what we've been using out in the field."
So subsequent to that, they provided, after numerous discussions,
another procedure at a later date was produced and it was called the same
title, except it was called Rev. 1, but it had a later date. It had the May 22,
2014 date, but it -- it did have 4 the 65 to 65. And I said, "Well, this is --
this is different, it's later, which one did you actually use?" And so, there
was some confusion as to who had what in the field.
And then what further complicates things, is the version 3 that they did
with Hamilton Engineering on November 11, 2014, they also have titled it
"Rev. 2" again. And so, that made it very, very complicated in the field
trying to determine who had what version of what, because some people
have Rev. 2, some people have the original Rev. 2, some people had Rev.
1, which was actually the second version. And so, we went by what the
project manager and chief welding inspector told us that they had been using
up to that point of that inspection to conduct welding on the pipeline and do
their testing.
7 Id.



CPF No. 4-2016-5011
Page 4
And I 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 80868