SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF42024027NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_10072025_(23-266081).pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF42024027NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_07312024_(23-266081).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF42024027NOPV_PCO_05312024_(23-266081).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF42024027NOPV_PCO_05312024_(23-266081)_text.pdf#

42024027NOPV_Closure Letter_06292026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630 Houston TX 77074 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com June 29, 2026 Thomas Long Chief Executive Officer Energy Transfer, LP 8111 Westchase Drive Dallas, TX, 75225 CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV Dear Mr. Long: On September 17, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Final Order to Sunoco Pipeline, LP1 (Sunoco), in the above-referenced case. Subsequent to the Order PHMSA issued a Decision on your petition. The Order and Decision included compliance actions requiring corrective actions. Based on our review of the documentation you submitted, we have determined that you have complied with all the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Rod Seeley Acting Director, Southwest Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP, is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP#

42024027NOPV_Closure Letter_06292026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 2cc: Daniel Wentworth, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP, Daniel.wentworth@energytransfer.com Chad Ingalls, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP, Chad.ingalls@energytransfer.com Todd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP, todd.stamm@energytransfer.com Jennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP, jennifer.street@energytransfer.com Keegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP, keegan.pieper@energytransfer.com Matthew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP, matthew.stork@energytransfer.com Todd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP, todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com Susie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP, susie.sjulin@energytransfer.com Anne Blankenship, Chief Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP, anne.blankenship@energytransfer.com#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 September 17, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com Thomas Long Chief Executive Officer Energy Transfer, LP 8111 Westchester Drive Dallas, TX, 75225 Re: CPF No. 4-2024-027-NOPV Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Sunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco), to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Linda Daugherty Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Bryan Jeffrey Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Keegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP, keegan.pieper@energytransfer.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 2U.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. 4-2024-027-NOPV a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From March 13 to July 14, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected Sunoco Pipeline, LP’s1 (Sunoco) hazardous liquid pipeline in Houston, Delmont, and Montello, Pennsylvania. The pipeline transports approximately 350 miles of natural gas liquid (NGL) and refined products from Delmont to Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 31, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had committed three violations of 49 CFR Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Energy Transfer, LP (Energy Transfer or Respondent), on behalf of Sunoco, responded to the Notice by letter dated July 31, 2024 (Response).2 Energy Transfer contested one of the allegations, requested modification of the compliance order, and offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. 1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP, is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP. See Ownership Structure, ENERGY TRANSFER, https://www.energytransfer.com/ownership- structure/#:~:text=SUN's%20general%20partner%20is%20owned,more%20information%2C%20visit%20Sunoco% 20LP.&text=(NYSE%3A%20USAC)%20is%20a,of%20total%20compression%20fleet%20horsepower (last accessed October 21, 2024). 2 The Region granted Energy Transfer’s request for an extension of the 30-day deadline in 49 CFR § 190.208 for responding to the Notice.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 32 FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1), which states: § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (a) …. (i) What preventative and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the high consequence area? – (1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These measures include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, implementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring of cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter inspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying the systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and adopting other management controls. The Notice alleged that Sunoco violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area (HCA). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to consider or recommend preventative and mitigative measures (P&MMs) at the Beckersville, Elverson, Marcus Hook, and Montello Stations to address dead legs or lightning strikes. Energy Transfer “neither admit[ted] nor denie[d] the allegation” of violation in Item 1 of the Notice in its Response. 3 Instead, Energy Transfer offered additional information to support its decision not to implement P&MMs at the Beckersville, Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations and requested that PHMSA withdraw the Proposed Compliance Order (PCO) associated with Item 1. In particular, Energy Transfer explained that: The purpose of the meetings identified in Section 5.3 of Sunoco’s Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Rev. 7, Oct. 5, 2022) of the IMP that generated the DOT 195 HCA Facility Analysis documents previously provided to PHMSA is to review a series of questions pertaining to potential threats/risks at the facilities. The questions are to drive discussions to identify concerns, and potentially recommend preventive of mitigative measures, but P&M activities are not mandated simply by a question being answered as “Yes”. For example, if the items were historic (past issues previously addressed), are being addressed through existing efforts or procedures, and/or are not considered to be a 3 Response at 3.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 43 significant enough threat/concern to warrant a P&MM, they are not “recommended’ through this document. Regarding the alleged failure to implement P&MMs to address lightning strikes, Energy Transfer acknowledged that the Beckersville, Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations had previously experienced power outages due to this phenomenon as indicated in the DOT 195 HCA Facility Analysis documents. However, Energy Transfer explained that the issue was not considered an integrity threat given existing procedures and processes to initiate a station shutdown in the event of a power outage and the installation of protective equipment at the station to address lightning strikes. Energy Transfer also noted that weather and outside force damage were “considered a relatively low risk overall” on the pipeline system. As for the alleged failure to implement P&MMs for dead legs, Energy Transfer provided the following additional information about its efforts to address the issue at the Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations. Elverson Station. Energy Transfer explained that the piping identified as a dead leg is an above grade pig trap bypass line that operates when receiving inline inspection tools. Energy Transfer noted that this piping can be flushed, is regularly monitored, presents little or no internal corrosion threat, and is scheduled to be removed in 2025. Montello Station. Energy Transfer explained that the identification of dead legs as a potential integrity threat in the DOT 195 HCA Facility Analysis documents was based on an assumption given the size and complexity of the station. However, subsequent visual inspections and corrosion monitoring performed by a third-party consultant did not identify any dead legs at the station. Marcus Hook Station. Energy Transfer explained that the identification of dead legs as a potential integrity threat in the DOT 195 HCA Facility Analysis documents was based on an assumption given the size and complexity of the station. Energy Transfer further explained that subsequent visual inspections and corrosion monitoring performed by a third-party consultant identified dead legs at the station. Energy Transfer explained that these dead legs were being addressed through an integrity management program. In the Region Recommendation (Recommendation), the Director of the Southwest Region recommended that the allegation of violation in Item 1 of the Notice be sustained for two reasons.4 First, the Director stated that Energy Transfer “admitted that it failed to recommend P&MMs to address dead legs and lightning strikes at the facilities listed in the Notice” in its Response.5 Second, the Director stated “[w]hile [Energy Transfer] contended it had elements in place that rendered P&MMs unnecessary, it nonetheless acknowledged that it failed to 4 Recommendation at 3-4. 5 Recommendation at 3.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 54 implement P&MMs for the identified issues of lightning strikes and dead legs.”6 With respect to lightning strikes, the Director noted that Energy Transfer had not mentioned any of the reasons offered in its Response for concluding that this issue was not an integrity threat during the onsite inspection, nor had Energy Transfer provided any records to support that conclusion. The Director similarly noted that Energy Transfer had not provided any records to support the statements made in its Response about the treatment of dead legs at the Elverson, Montello, or Marcus Hook Stations, including any documents related to the subsequent visual inspections and corrosion monitoring performed by the third-party consultant. After considering all of the evidence, I find that Sunoco violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect an HCA. While I do not agree with the Director’s contention that Energy Transfer admitted the violation alleged in Item 1 of the Notice, I find that OPS sustained its burden of proof on the merits. As to the procedural question, section 190.208(b) prescribes the requirements for responding to a notice of probable violation that contains a proposed compliance order.7 It states, in relevant part, that “[i]f the respondent is contesting one or more of the allegations of probable violation or compliance terms, but is not requesting a hearing under § 190.211, the respondent may object to the proposed compliance order and submit written explanations, information, or other materials in answer to the allegations in the notice of probable violation.”8 Section 190.208(d) further states, in relevant part, that a respondent’s “[f]ailure to respond in accordance with . . . paragraph (b) of this section, constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the allegations in the notice of probable violation and authorizes the Associate Administrator, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts as alleged in the notice of probable violation and to issue a final order under § 190.213.”9 In this case, Energy Transfer “neither admit[ted] nor denie[d] the allegation” of violation in Item 1 of the Notice in its Response. However, Energy Transfer also clearly “object[ed] to the proposed compliance order and submit[ted] written explanations, information, or other materials in answer to the allegations in the notice of probable violation.”10 While arguably inconsistent, the statements made by Energy Transfer in its Response were sufficient to preserve its rights under § 190.208(b)(3) to contest the allegations in Item 1 of the Notice and avoid a waiver under § 190.208(d). Turning to the merits, section 195.452(k) prescribes the recordkeeping requirements that apply to hazardous liquid pipeline facilities that are subject to the integrity management program requirements, including the provisions for P&MMs in § 195452(i). Section 6 Recommendation at 3. 7 49 CFR § 190.208(b). 8 49 CFR § 190.208(b)(3). 9 49 CFR § 190.208(d). 10 49 CFR § 190.208(b)(3).#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 65 195.452(k) states, in relevant part: An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection: (i) A written integrity management program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section. Section 195.452(f), the regulation that prescribes the basic elements of an IM program, lists P&MMs as one of those elements. As such, Sunoco had an obligation under § 195.452(k) to “maintain . . . records for review during” OPS’s “inspection” documenting the “decisions and analyses . . . and actions taken” to address the integrity threats identified in the DOT 195 HCA Facility Analysis, including through the implementation of P&MMs. As the Director explained in the Region Recommendation, Sunoco did not provide any records related to addressing the integrity threats identified in the DOT 195 HCA Facility Analysis during the inspection. Nor did Energy Transfer provide any such records in responding to the Notice. Energy Transfer simply offered statements to demonstrate that lightning strikes are not an integrity threat to the Beckersville, Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations, and to describe the actions taken to address the integrity threat posed by dead legs at the Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations. These statements are not sufficient to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in § 195.452(k), or to substantiate Sunoco’s compliance with the P&MM provisions in § 195.452(i). For these reasons, I find that Sunoco committed the violation alleged in Item 1 of the Notice. Energy Transfer’s request for withdrawal of the PCO for this item will be discussed below in the Compliance Order section. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(l)(1)(ii), which states: § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (a) …. (l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance? (1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection: (i) …. (ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications, deviations, and determinations made, variance, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each elements of the#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 76 integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to maintain documentation showing that recommended preventative measures were implemented for line segments 11190.2 (BECK-TWIN-8) and 12124.1 (DELM-HOLL-8).11 In its Response, Energy Transfer again neither admitted nor denied the allegation of violation in Item 2 of the Notice. Rather, it provided additional information regarding the steps it had taken to address PHSMA’s finding and asked that PHMSA find the PCO associated with this item satisfied. As with Item 1 of the Notice, the Director states that Energy Transfer did not contest the allegation in Item 2 of the Notice its Response. The Director further states that information provided in the Response, including the actions taken by Sunoco after receiving the Notice, demonstrate that its failure to comply with the requirements in § 195.452(l)(1)(ii). After considering all of the evidence, I find that Sunoco violated 49 CFR § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program. While I do not agree that Energy Transfer waived its right to contest the allegations in Item 2 of the Notice for the reasons discussed in addressing Item 1 of the Notice, I agree with the Director that the information provided in the Response is sufficient to substantive the alleged violation, particularly with respect to the actions taken to update the provisions in its IM program. Energy Transfer’s request that PHMSA find the PCO for this item satisfied will be discussed below in the Compliance Order section. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.402 (c)(13), which states: § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) …. (c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations: (1) …. (13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to periodically review the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures 11 49 CFR § 195.452(f)(6) requires the identification of P&MMs to protect an HCA in accordance with the requirements of § 195.452(i).#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 87 used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where deficiencies are found, in accordance with the regulation and Sunoco’s procedure, Guiding Principles for Standard Operating Procedures, A-HLA.02 (Rev. September 1, 2023). Sunoco’s Guiding Principles for Standard Operating Procedures, A-HLA.02 (Rev. September 1, 2023) stated that the document explains the need to perform the periodic review required by § 195.402(c)(13).12 However, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to provide records showing that periodic reviews of the work performed by personnel were conducted and corrective actions taken to correct deficiencies in the procedures used for normal operation and maintenance where found. The periodic effectiveness review required by § 195.402(c)(13) should be “a comprehensive or organized review of all company procedures to evaluate their overall effectiveness.”13 To demonstrate compliance, “an operator should be able to produce documentation showing that it had conducted an actual analysis of its procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, that it implemented a process by which it had determined whether its procedures were adequate or not, and that it had corrected any procedures found to be deficient.”14 Such documentation must show an effectiveness review was “performed for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of the…procedures themselves,”15 and not for any other reason. PHMSA precedent is clear that a periodic effectiveness review is separate and distinct from evaluation of individual job performance.16 In its Response, Energy Transfer contested the allegation of violation and the terms of the PCO associated with the Item. It asserted that Sunoco complies with § 195.402(c)(13) via a collective process that consists of: (1) Quality Job Reviews (QJRs), (2) Annual Work History Reviews (AWHRs), (3) methods by which company personnel may request modifications to procedures, and (4) Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Reviews. Sunoco included documentation of this collective process as Attachment C to its Response. 12 PHMSA Violation Report, CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV, Exhibit C-2, Energy Transfer’s SOP HLA.02 “Guiding Principle for Standard Operating Procedures, Section 1, Revision Date 09/02/2023. 13 In the Matter of ONEOK NGL Pipeline, LP, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2012-5012 (June 12, 2014), https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125012/320125012_Final%20Order_06122014.pdf. 14 Id. (citing PHMSA Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/regulatory-compliance/pipeline/enforcement/5781/o-m- enforcement-guidance-part-195-7-21-2017.pdf. 15 In the Matter of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Final Order, CPF 3-2008-5011 (August 17, 2010), https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320085011/320085011_Final%20Order_08172010.pdf. 16 In the Matter of TransMontaigne Operating Company, LP, Final Order, CPF 3-2013-5025 (May 8, 2014) (“[Respondent] was able to provide documentation that the performance of individual personnel was regularly reviewed, but no systematic steps were take to ensure that overall operations and maintenance procedures were effective.”), https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement- documents/320135025/320135025_Final%20Order_05082014.pdf; see also Enbridge, supra note 5.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 98 Respondent stated that Sunoco’s QJR process involves supervisors, managers, and/or directors traveling to the field to witness employees at work. The results of the QJRs range from acknowledgement of adequately performed tasks, identification of an update to procedure(s), the need for additional training, and any other areas for improvement. In addition, Respondent stated that AWHRs are conducted by supervisors and consist of a review of the Operator Qualification (OQ) tasks performed to determine effectiveness of procedures and identify any questions or need for changes or updates to any of the procedures utilized in performing tasks. Energy Transfer further stated that it has a process, described in A-HLA.02, Guiding Principles for Standard Operating Procedures, Sections 1.0, 4.0, 7.2, and Appendix C, by which company personnel may request modifications to procedures. Under this procedure, Sunoco subject matter experts review these requests for potential implementation. Lastly, Sunoco’s Annual O&M SOP Reviews identify any changes that may be necessary to its O&M SOPs, along with considering changes offered by other personnel. Respondent suggested that the collective process described in its Response satisfies § 195.402(c)(13). Energy Transfer contended that its QJRs satisfied the regulatory requirements. However, the QJRs are not evidence of compliance. The QJRs are focused on reviewing the job performance of individual personnel. Indeed, in Attachment C provided with the Response, some of the comments in the QJRs are solely related to job performance, such as stating all employees “worked safely”17 and “[w]ork was done satisfactorily.”18 Section 195.402(c)(13) is “directed to procedures refinement, not employee evaluation.”19 Energy Transfer also contended that the AWHRs conducted as part of its Operator Qualification (OQ) program satisfied the requirements of § 195.402(c)(13). Like QJRs, the AWHRs are meant to review the job performance of personnel, specifically OQ-qualified personnel. The AWHRs state that the purpose of the work history review is to “determine whether the individual has knowledge and skills required to continue to perform these tasks.”20 AWHRs are training and qualification reviews performed for the purpose of evaluating an individual’s knowledge and ability to perform a task. Such reviews do not constitute compliance with § 195.402(c)(13).21 Energy Transfer also asserted in its Response that its process by which personnel could, “at any time…request amendments to procedures” demonstrated compliance with § 195.402(c)(13). However, encouraging personnel to comment on procedures on an ad hoc basis does not meet the regulatory requirement in 195.402(c)(13), which requires a comprehensive or organized review of all company procedures to evaluate their overall effectiveness.22 Respondent further asserted 17 Response, Attachment C, at page 21. 18 Response, Attachment C, at page 28. 19 PHMSA Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195, supra. 20 Response, Attachment C, at 30; see also PHMSA Violation Report, CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV, Exhibit C-1, Energy Transfer’s OQ Task Review Records. 21 Enbridge, supra note 6; see also PHMSA Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195, supra. 22 ONEOK NGL Pipeline, supra at note 4.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 109 that its SOP annual reviews demonstrate compliance with § 195.402(c)(13). However, operators are required to conduct annual procedural reviews under § 195.402(a). This is a separate requirement from the periodic effectiveness reviews in § 195.402(c)(13). When promulgating § 192.605(b)(8), which contains a verbatim periodic effectiveness review requirement for operators of gas pipeline facilities, PHMSA stated that changes identified during the periodic effectiveness review can be executed during the annual review required by § 192.605(a).23 However, the agency distinguished periodic effectiveness reviews from the annual review of the manual of written procedures for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. 24 The same distinction applies to the periodic effectiveness review and annual review required by §§ 195.402(c)(13) and 195.402(a), respectively. As such, the annual SOP review does not constitute a periodic effectiveness review for the purpose of satisfying § 195.402(c)(13). Sunoco failed to provide evidence of a comprehensive review of its procedures “performed for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of the…procedures themselves.”25 Respondent failed to provide documentation of an “actual analysis of its procedures [that] determined whether its procedures were adequate.”26 Nor was documentation provided demonstrating that Sunoco analyzed its procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, that it implemented a process by which it determined whether its procedures were adequate or not, or that it corrected any procedures found to be deficient.27 Respondent submitted no evidence to demonstrate it has ever concluded that its procedures are effective. No documentation was provided to show that an “effectiveness review” of any procedure was carried out. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to periodically review the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where deficiencies are found, in accordance with the regulation and Sunoco’s procedure, Guiding Principles for Standard Operating Procedures, A-HLA.02 (Rev. September 1, 2023). These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. 23 Both § 192.605(a) and § 195.402(a) require an operator to review annually its manual of written procedures for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. 24 Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Pipelines, Final Rule: Response to Petition for Reconsideration, 60 Fed. Reg. 14,379 14,379 (March 17, 1995). 25 Enbridge, supra note 6. 26 ONEOK NGL Pipeline, supra note 4. 27 Id.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 1110 COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for violations of 49 CFR §§ 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(l)(1)(ii) and 195.402(c)(13), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. With regard to the violation of § 195.452(i)(1) (Item 1), Respondent argued the compliance terms should be withdrawn. As stated in the Notice, PHMSA reviewed Sunoco’s DOT 195 Facility HCA Analysis (May 21, 2022) that analyzed these stations. The analysis identified as issues historic call-outs due to lightning strikes at Beckersville, Elverson, and Marcus Hook. The analysis also identified as issues operational dead legs at Elverson, Marcus Hook, and Montello Station. Section 5.3 of Sunoco’s Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Rev. 7, October 5, 2022)28 stated that after the DOT 195 Facility HCA Analysis is completed, operator personnel will list all threat concerns prioritized by risk for the facility and develop proposed preventative and/or mitigative measures and time frame to address each concern. However, Sunoco did not develop proposed preventative and/or mitigative measures for each threat/concern (historic call outs due to lightning strikes and dead legs) and develop time frames to address each concern determined in the DOT 195 Facility HCA analysis. In its Response, Respondent provided additional information related to the P&MMs at Beckersville, Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook facilities. Energy Transfer stated that the purpose of the integrity management plan (IMP)’s section 5.3 meetings is to review a series of questions pertaining to potential threats/risks at the facilities, and that the questions drive discussions to identify concerns and potentially recommend P&MMs. Respondent stated that P&MMs are not mandated by a question being answered in the affirmative. For example, Energy Transfer stated that if the items were historic, are being addressed through existing efforts, or are not significant, P&MMs would not be developed. Energy Transfer stated that at the Beckersville, Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations, lightning strikes had occurred resulting in power loss. However, Respondent further stated that these were not considered to be a threat to integrity and are already sufficiently addressed by its procedures. Specifically, Energy Transfer stated: • “If the systems lose facility transmitters, communication procedures exist for the system to initiate a station shut down or the station is programmed to shut down automatically.” • “There are lightening arrestors across all insulating gaskets and lightning protection at the facilities/tanks to meet NEC code.” However, Energy Transfer did not provide records to show how each facility is mitigating the threat of lightning strikes. Without such records, PHSMA cannot determine if these elements 28 PHMSA Violation Report, CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV, Exhibit A-2, Energy Transfer’s Pipeline Integrity Management Plan, Section 5.3, Revision Date 10/05/2022.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 1211 adequately address the threat of lightning strikes. Regarding dead legs at Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook Stations, Energy Transfer stated the following: • At Elverson, the pipe identified as a potential dead leg was a pig trap bypass line that operates when receiving ILI tools and can be flushed. The pipe is above grade, monitored during weekly site visits, has security cameras, and has little to no internal corrosion threat. Further, the pipe is scheduled to be removed in 2025. • At Montello, no specific P&MM was recommended because, following third-party API 570 visual inspection and corrosion monitoring in 2022 for all the piping within the facility, no dead leg piping was discovered. • At Marcus Hook, following third-party API 570 visual inspection and corrosion monitoring in 2022 for all the piping within the facility, a list of dead legs at the facility was updated within the Asset Integrity’s SHIELD program and any recommendations are being managed as a part of that program. With regard to the dead legs identified at Marcus Hook Station, Sunoco did not develop any P&MMs, despite identifying dead legs, and Respondent failed to provide records supporting the statements it made in its Response. Energy Transfer failed to provide the API 570 inspection report and failed to include material facts, such as the number of identified dead legs and their locations. Respondent also failed to include analyses of flowrates and design features at this facility to eliminate the possibility of dead legs. With respect to Montello and Elverson Stations, Energy Transfer failed to adequately explain why it initially believed dead legs were present at these facilities. Nor did it provide documentation of the API 570 inspection and corrosion monitoring that concluded no dead legs existed. Without records to corroborate the absence of dead legs at both facilities, PHMSA cannot determine if the PCO should be withdrawn. For the above reasons, the Compliance Order for Item 1 is not withdrawn. With regard to the violation of § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Item 2), Respondent argued the compliance terms should be deemed satisfied. With its Response, Energy Transfer provided documentation of the actions it has to complete the recommended P&MMs.29 In a recommendation from Southwest Region, the Region Director recommended that the PCO be deemed satisfied. Following review of the submitted documentation, I agree that the terms of the PCO have been completed. For this reason, a compliance actions associated with Item 2 is not included in this Order. With regard to the violation of § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 3), Energy Transfer requested withdrawal of the underlying allegation of violation and the PCO associated with this item. In its Response, Respondent did not provide argument for withdrawal or modification of the PCO other than withdrawal of the underlying allegation of violation. For the reasons discussed above, in the 29 Response, Attachments A & B.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 1312 Findings of Violation section of this Order, I determined that Item 3 should not be withdrawn. For this reason, the Compliance Order for Item 3 is not withdrawn or modified. Therefore, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195. 452(i)(1) (Item 1), Sunoco must implement preventative and mitigative measures to address operational dead legs and lightening strikes, and provide records of the implemented measures to the Director, Southwest Region, within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 3), Sunoco must develop and establish a process for periodically conducting and documenting reviews of work performed by personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where deficiencies are found and submit the plan to the Director, Southwest Region, for approval within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. 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. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties exceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 CFR § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than 20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.#

42024027NOPV_Final Order_09172025_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 14___________________________________ _______________________ Linda Daugherty Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 13#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 February 4, 2026 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com Thomas Long Chief Executive Officer Energy Transfer, LP 8111 Westchester Drive Dallas, TX 75225 Re: CPF No. 4-2024-027-NOPV Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above- referenced case. For the reasons stated therein, it finds Sunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco), a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, in violation of Items 1 and 3 and requires Sunoco to take certain actions to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this decision by e-mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Linda Daugherty Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety Keegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP, keegan.pieper@energytransfer.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 2U.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. 4-2024-027-NOPV a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION From March 13 to July 14, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected a hazardous liquid pipeline operated by Sunoco Pipeline, LP (Sunoco)1 in Houston, Delmont, and Montello, Pennsylvania. The pipeline transports natural gas liquid (NGL) and refined products from Delmont to Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued by letter dated May 31, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding Sunoco had committed three violations of 49 CFR Part 195 and proposed ordering certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Energy Transfer, LP (Energy Transfer or Petitioner), on behalf of Sunoco, responded to the Notice by letter dated July 31, 2024 (Response).2 Energy Transfer explicitly contested one of the allegations, requested modification of the Compliance Order, and offered additional information. Petitioner did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one. On September 17, 2025, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 CFR §190.213, the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued a Final Order in this proceeding. In the Final Order, the Associate Administrator found Petitioner that violated 49 CFR §§ 1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP, is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP. See Ownership Structure, ENERGY TRANSFER, https://www.energytransfer.com/ownershipstructure/#:~: text=SUN's%20general%20partner%20is%20owned,more%20information%2C%20visit%20Sunoco% 20LP.&text=(NYSE%3A%20USAC)%20is%20a,of%20total%20compression%20fleet%20horsepower (last accessed October 21, 2024). 2 The Region granted Energy Transfer’s request for an extension of the 30-day deadline in 49 CFR § 190.208 for responding to the Notice.#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 32 195.452(i)(1) (Item 1), 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Item 2), and 195.402(c)(13) (Item 3) as alleged in the Notice. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, the Associate Administrator directed Sunoco to take certain actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations for two of the three Items (Items 1 and 3). The Associate Administrator did not include compliance actions for Item 2, having found that Sunoco satisfied the proposed Compliance Order in the Notice. On October 9, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.243 (Petition). Energy Transfer requested reconsideration of Items 1 and 3 only. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 49 CFR § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to section 190.213. Reconsideration is not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.3 A respondent may ask for correction of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a respondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order.4 The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings. II. DISCUSSION Item 1: The Final Order found that Sunoco violated section 195.452(i)(1) as alleged in the Notice. Energy Transfer argues in the Petition that this finding should be reconsidered for three reasons. First, Energy Transfer states that its procedures reflect measures taken to mitigate the risks associated with lightning strikes, and that the DOT 195 Facility HCA Analysis referenced in the Final Order, which identified lightning strikes at Beckersville Station, Elverson Station, and Marcus Hook Station, did not reflect a determination that preventative and mitigative measures (P&MMs) needed to be taken at those locations. Energy Transfer further states that sufficient measures and programs are already in place to address lightning strikes at the Beckersville, Elverson, and Marcus Hook Stations. As evidence to substantiate these points, Energy Transfer provided a copy of its lightning program as Attachment A to its Petition. 5 Energy Transfer also provided a schematic showing an example of the arrestors that have been installed on all insulating flanges, which it said were a part of its program to address lightning strike risks at its 3 49 CFR § 190.243(a)-(d). 4 49 CFR § 190.244(b). 5 Energy Transfer, Petition for Reconsideration (October 9, 2025) (hereinafter “Petition”), Attachment A, Sunoco Logistics, Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (SPLP) & Affiliates Operations Manual, Section 195.405, Protection Against Ignitions and Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Aboveground Breakout Tanks (Jan. 22, 2018); id., Section 195.575, Electric Isolation of Pipelines.#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 43 facilities, as Attachment B to its Petition. 6 Second, regarding dead legs, Energy Transfer reiterates that the DOT 195 Facility HCA Analysis, which identified dead legs at the Elverson, Marcus Hook, and Montello Stations, did not reflect a determination that P&MMs needed to be taken, and that sufficient measures and programs are in place to address dead legs at these locations. Energy Transfer further notes that “‘any recommendations for dead legs’ are managed as part of the Company’s IMP through the Asset Integrity SHIELD program.”7 Energy Transfer explains that the SHIELD program is a “sophisticated software tool” used “in the collection of comprehensive information and data generated by its IMP, including records of visual inspection reports, non-destructive examination results, recommendations, dead leg management activities, relief valve data, and associated equipment and piping circuit information.”8 Citing the SHIELD program, Energy Transfer asserts that its “IMP already comprehensively addresses all risks associated with dead leg sections of piping as well as any other piping.”9 For the first time, Energy Transfer provided a copy of its Standard Operating Procedures, Internal Corrosion and Monitoring and Mitigation IMP, as Attachment C to its Petition. 10 Energy Transfer further provided, for the first time, “portions of its integrity management manual that relate to the requirements for selecting ‘condition monitoring locations’ (‘CMLs’)” as Attachment D to its Petition.11 Relying on these newly disclosed documents, Energy Transfer explains that under its IMP it “applies its CML procedure to facility piping to identify loss of thickness in all sections of pipe, including dead legs.”12 Per Petitioner, the data from this CML testing provides data to manage internal corrosion integrity risks associated with all facility piping, including dead legs. Energy Transfer also states that it has procedures addressing external corrosion risks under its IMP, and that it sufficiently monitors and addresses any dead legs identified at the Marcus Hook Station in accordance with these procedures. Finally, Petitioner states that given the commodities shipped to Marcus Hook Station are refined products or HVLs (i.e., not crude oil), “no additional preventive and mitigative measures are necessary to manage the dead legs given the non-corrosive nature of the commodities at that facility.”13 Third, Energy Transfer explains that it “revised” and “revamped” its Standard Operating 6 Energy Transfer, Petition, Attachment B, Sunoco Logistics, Standard Drawing C210012, Standard Surge/Lightning Arrestor (May 24, 2006). 7 Energy Transfer, Petition at 4. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Energy Transfer, Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment C, Energy Transfer, Procedure No. HLD.30, Internal Corrosion Monitoring and Mitigation (Aug. 19, 2025). 11 Energy Transfer, Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment D, Energy Transfer, Fixed Equipment Inspection Manual, Appendix C, Procedure C-16, CML Placement Guide (Oct. 21, 2021). 12 Energy Transfer, Petition at 5. 13 Id. at 5.#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 54 Procedure (SOP) for internal corrosion monitoring and mitigation.14 Petitioner states that the revisions “consolidate the existing requirements and procedures in the IMP and directly respond to the terms of the Compliance Order associated with Item 1.”15 Furthermore, Energy Transfer states that it will apply the revised SOP and accelerate its scheduled integrity threat reviews at the Elverson, Montello, and Marcus Hook facilities.16 Petitioner requests that if PHMSA maintains the violation for Item 1, it should find the terms of the Compliance Order for Item 1 satisfied. Energy Transfer did not present any of the documents included in Attachments A-D or the additional facts or arguments referenced in the Petition prior to issuance of its request for reconsideration. Requests for consideration of additional facts or arguments must be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the order.17 Energy Transfer did not provide any explanation or justification for not doing so. Instead, Energy Transfer merely states in its Petition that these documents were “available to the inspector during the inspection.”18 Absent a statement of reasons from Energy Transfer as to why it did not present this evidence and argument previously, the newly raised argument and evidence will not be considered when evaluating whether Sunoco complied with the regulatory requirements. Given the alleged violation centered on not having taken P&MMs to address lightning strikes and dead legs, documentation and facts indicating such measures had been take should have been presented in responding to the Notice. Because the request for withdrawal of Item 1 is premised upon evidence and argument submitted for the first time with the Petition—which will not be considered—and reiterated argument previously considered and discussed by the Final Order, I find that reconsideration is not warranted. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and based upon the foregoing, I find Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. Item 3: The Final Order found that Sunoco violated section 195.402(c)(13) as alleged in the Notice. Petitioner argues that this finding should be reconsidered for two reasons. First, Energy Transfer notes section 195.402(c)(13) affords operators flexibility in how they carry out the required periodic review.19 Energy Transfer asserts that its collective process of Quality Job Reviews (QJRs), Annual Work History Reviews (AWHRs), methods by which 14 Id. 15 Id. at 6. 16 Id. 17 49 CFR § 195.243(b). 18 Id. at 4. 19 Energy Transfer, Petition at 7.#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 65 company personnel may request modifications to procedures, and Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) SOP Reviews satisfies the requirement of section 195.402(c)(13).20 Second, Energy Transfer argues that it has “[a]mended its SOPs to further demonstrate the effectiveness review function of its existing review process.”21 It states that it updated section 7.2 of the Company’s “Guiding Principles for Standard Operating Procedures” to “more clearly define the process the Company employs to conduct periodic effectiveness reviews.”22 It further states that these effectiveness review efforts will be led by subject matter experts and similar personnel. Energy Transfer argues that if PHMSA does not withdraw Item 3, this update warrants finding the Compliance Order satisfied. Neither of Energy Transfer’s arguments is persuasive. Regarding its first argument, Energy Transfer is correct that the regulation does not prescribe a specific review process for regulatory compliance. However, its “cumulative and collective review processes” do not comport with section 195.402(c)(13). Energy Transfer’s Annual O&M SOP Reviews do not meet the requirements of section 195.402(c)(13). Energy Transfer asserts the “structured, formal processes”23 of its Annual O&M SOP Review can satisfy both the periodic review required by section 195.402(c)(13) and the annual review required by section 195.402(a) if it fulfills both required levels of review. It describes these as, respectively, “a searching, comprehensive review of work to evaluate procedure effectiveness and a general, high-level review of an O&M manual with an opportunity for implementing procedural improvements.”24 Energy Transfer states its Annual O&M SOP Review accomplished both levels of review. However, the record lacks evidence to show that during the Annual O&M SOP Review Energy Transfer reviewed work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, and that corrective action is taken where deficiencies are found. Energy Transfer states the Annual O&M SOP Review is a “process wherein the document owners and volume owners of the procedures review such on an annual basis to identify any changes that may be necessary, along with considering changes offered by other personnel.”25 This does not describe a process wherein the work done by operator personnel is reviewed to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance. Energy Transfer points to the 2023 Annual O&M SOP Review Form, stating it 20 These arguments are repetitious of those made in Petitioner’s Response, and Energy Transfer submitted no new evidence pertinent to Item 3. Rather, Petitioner merely provided additional details about the documents it reviews. Energy Transfer did not submit a reason for not previously providing these details. It is within the agency’s discretion to reject Petitioner’s untimely submission of these additional details and sustain the Final Order’s finding of violation. 21 Energy Transfer, Petition at 10. 22 Id. at 10. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Energy Transfer, Response at 8.#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 76 “provides direct documentation of over 100 SOP reviews.”26 However, this record does not demonstrate a review of the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance.27 Energy Transfer’s AWHRs do not meet the requirements of section 195.402(c)(13). Energy Transfer asserts its AWHRs, included in Attachment C of its Response, involved “an assessment of whether ‘SOP’s [sic] [are] adequate and effective in providing guidance to perform required tasks,” which it claimed was a “straightforward example of the review of O&M procedures required under § 195.402(c)(13).”28 However, this record does not demonstrate compliance with the regulatory requirement. This annual review pertains to Operator Qualification (OQ) Tasks and its purpose is to “determine whether the individual has knowledge and skills required to continue to perform these tasks.”29 Thus, the AWHRs are training and qualification reviews performed for the purpose of evaluating an individual’s knowledge and ability to perform a covered task. They are not reviews of work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and do not document taking corrective action where deficiencies are found as a result of that review. Energy Transfer’s QJRs do not demonstrate compliance with section 195.402(c)(13). Petitioner asserts the example QJR provided with its Response30—a “post event report for a specific procedure called the ‘12128-BLNS-TWI7 Smart Tool run’—was documentary evidence of its process for reviewing the effectiveness of O&M procedures.31 PHMSA has identified post event reports and employee suggestions as two techniques operators may use to determine the effectiveness of procedures.32 However, Energy Transfer’s QJRs are focused on reviewing the job performance of individual personnel. In the aforementioned document, some of the comments were solely related to job performance, such as stating all employees “worked safely”33 and “[w]ork was done satisfactorily.”34 Section 195.402(c)(13) is “directed to procedures refinement, not employee evaluation.”35 The QJR provided thus does not reflect a review of work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and do not document taking corrective action where deficiencies are found as a result of that review. 26 Energy Transfer, Petition at 8. 27 Energy Transfer, Response, Attachment C, Annual O&M SOP Review Documentation. 28 Energy Transfer, Petition at 8. 29 Energy Transfer, Response, Attachment C, at 30; see also PHMSA Violation Report, CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV, Exhibit C-1, Energy Transfer’s OQ Task Review Records. 30 Energy Transfer, Response, Attachment C, Annual Work History Review Example Documentation. 31 Energy Transfer, Petition at 8. 32 PHMSA Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195 (2017), at 22. 33 Energy Transfer, Response, Attachment C, at page 21. 34 Id. at page 28. 35 PHMSA Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/regulatory-compliance/pipeline/enforcement/5781/o- menforcement-guidance-part-195-7-21-2017.pdf.#

42024027NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_02042026_(23-266081)_text.pdf, page 87 Energy Transfer also asserts the process by which employees may leave suggestions and Sunoco’s review of those suggestions satisfies the review required by section 195.402(c)(13). It states this process “provides personnel with an opportunity to directly identify inadequacies and suggest improvements to SOPs.”36 This process, however, does not describe a review of work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance. Therefore, the review of employee suggestions does not comply with section 195.402(c)(13). Regarding Petitioner’s second argument, that PHMSA should find the terms of the Compliance Order satisfied in light of its SOP update, the Director, PHMSA Southwest Region, is in the best position to evaluate the adequacy of the updated procedures for compliance with the requirements of section 195.402(c)(13). Therefore, the Compliance Order’s substantive terms shall not be modified. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to periodically review the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where deficiencies are found. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. III. COMPLIANCE ORDER Item 1: With respect to the violation of section 195.452(i)(1) (Item 1), the documents Energy Transfer submitted for the first time with its Petition, while not considered when evaluating Sunoco’s compliance with the regulation, indicate that Sunoco has implemented P&MMs to address lightning strikes and dead legs to satisfy the terms of the Compliance Order. Therefore, I find that no further remedial action is needed. Item 3: With respect to the violation of section 195.402(c)(13) (Item 3), Sunoco must develop and establish a process for periodically conducting and documenting reviews of work performed by personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where deficiencies are found and submit the plan to the Director, Southwest Region, for approval within 60 days of receipt of this Decision on Petition for Reconsideration. IV. CONCLUSION Sunoco is in violation of 49 CFR §§ 195.402(c)(13) and 195.452(i)(1) and shall comply with the terms of the Compliance Order. This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. ___________________________________ __________________________ Linda Daugherty Date Issued Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 36 Energy Transfer, Petition at 8-9.#