SUNOCO PIPELINE LP — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDFcpf120025005o.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDFcpf120025005o_text.pdf#

120025005_final order_06232003_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFo U 5 Deportment ot Tionspoilot toft Research and Special Programs Administration 400 Seventh St S w Washington 0 C 20590 JUN 23 2003 Mr David Justin Vice President Sunoco Pipeline, L P Ten Penn Center 1801 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re CPF No 1-2002-5005 Dear Mr Justm Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Adnunistrator for Pipehne Safety in the above-referenced case It makes a finding of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000, and requires the amendment of certain of your integnty management program procedures The Final Order also finds that you have completed the Proposed Compliance Order item set forth in the Notice When the civil penalty is paid and the amendment of procedures completed, as determmed by the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, this enforcement action will be closed The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 CF R ) 190 5 Sincerely, Q~t-rent-Io~ k. 4a 1' Gwendolyn M Hill Pipeline Comphance Registry Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED#

120025005_final order_06232003_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of Sunoco Pipeline, L P Respondent CPF No 1-2002-5005 FINAL ORDER On March 5-7, 2002, pursuant to 49 U S C ) 60117, representatives of the Eastern and Southwest Regions, Office of Pipehne Safety (OPS) inspected Sunoco Pipeline L P 's (Respondent's) integri y management program at Respondent's facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 3, 2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Comphance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice) In accordance with 49 C F R tJ 190 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C F R tJ 195 452(b), proposed assessing a civil penalty of $10, 000 for the alleged violation, and proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violation The Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C F R tJ 190 237, that Respon ent amend its integrity management program procedures Respondent responded to the Notice by letters dated August 2 and 10, 2002 (Response) Respondent imtially contested the allegation of violation, offered an explanation, and requested a heanng By d edJanu 16 2003, Respondentdemonstratedthatithadcompletedthemeasurestocorrect the alleged violation that was proposed in the Notice By letter dated February 12, 2003, espon en provided information in mitigation of the proposed civil penalty for the alleged violation, an mformation outhning certain modifications it made to its integrity management procedures after receiving the Notice y et er a e e ru B I t d t dF b ary28 2003 Respondentprovidedfurtherinformation in mitigation of the proposed civil penalty and informed OPS that it was no longer contesting the allegation of violation y et er B I t dated March 5 2003 Respondent withdrew its request for a heanng FINDING OF VIOLATION In R its esponse, as supplemented, Respondent did not contest the alleged violation in the Notice Accordingly I find that Respondent violated the following section of 49 fully described in the Notice#

120025005_final order_06232003_text.pdf, page 349 C F R tJ 195 452(b) — failing to identify all of its pipeline segments that could affect a lugh consequence area (HCA) by the December 31, 2001 deadline This finding of violation will be considered a pnor offense m any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U S C tJ 60122, Respondent is sub)ect to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related senes of violations 49 U S C tJ 60122 and 49 C F R ) 190 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil penalty I consider the following criteria nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's pnor offenses, Respondent's abihty to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent m attemptmg to achieve comphance, the effect on Respondent's ability to connnue in business, and such other matters as Justice may require The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $10, 000 for violation of tJ 195 452(b), Respondent's failure to identify drinking water and ecological HCAs in seven states and resulting failure to identify all of its pipeline segments that could affect those HCAs by the December 31, 2001 deadline A full and accurate identification of all pipeline segments that could affect HCAs is a crucial first step in the integnty management process Determining which pipehne segments are located in or near HCAs requires first identifying the HCAs themselves Under ) 195 452(b), Respondent was obhgated to do so, even where areas meetmg the defimtion of a HCA were not yet designated as such m the Department of Transportation's National Pipeline Mapping System After receiving the Notice, however, Respondent demonstrated good faith in attempting to come into compliance In its response letters, Respondent acknowledged that it failed to identify its pipelme segments that could affect the referenced dnnking water and ecological HCAs prior to the deadhne Notably, Respondent took timely corrective action and has now identified additional pipeline segments that could affect HCAs after incorporating drmktng water and ecological HCAs in Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and has submitted a revised list of its pipeline segments that could affect HCAs to OPS Respondent has also expressed its intent to bnng its integrity management procedures mto comphance m accordance with the Notice Accordingly, having reviewed the record and consideredthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civd penalty of $5, 000 for the violation Payment of the civil penalty must be made witlun 20 days of service Payment may be made by sendm a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to "U S Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), P 0 Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 )#

120025005_final order_06232003_text.pdf, page 4Federal regulations (49 C F R $ 89 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Commumcations System (Fedwire), to the account o f the U S Treasury Detailed instructions are contamed in the enclosure Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Admiiustration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P 0 Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 954-4719 Failure to pay the $5, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U S C ) 3717, 31 C F R $ 901 9 and 49 C F R IJ 89 23 Pursuant to those same authonties, a late penalty charge of six percent (65') per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropnate action in a United States Distnct Court COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a Compliance Order in connection with the above-referenced violation of 49 C F R ) 195 452(b) Respondent subsequently demonstrated corrective action meeting the requirements of the proposed Compliance Order Respondent has now identified additional pipehne segments that could affect HCAs after incorporating dnnking water and ecological HCAs in Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and has submitted a revised hst of its pipehne segments that could affect HCAs Because Respondent's actions satisfy the terms of the proposed Compliance Order, issuance of a Comp hance Order is not necessary AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES The Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's inte~ty management program procedures and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's segment identification procedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C F R ) 195 452 In its response letters, Respondent indicated that it had revised several elements of its segment identification procedures Although these revisions were summanzed in the response letters, the revised procedures themselves were not appended Therefore, there is insufficient information to determine whether the revisions address all of the inadequacies descnbed in the Notice Accordmgly, I find that Respondent's procedures are inadequate to assure the safe operation of its pipehne system Pursuant to 49 U S C IJ 60108(a) and 49 C F R tJ 190 237, Respondent is ordered to make the following changes to its integnty management program procedures I Amend the procedures to provide adequate techmcal Justification for determining the extent of the air dispersion buffer zones used to identify pipeline segments that could affect HCAs by includmg an accepted, technically sound vapor cloud dispersion analysis for highly volatile liquid (HVL) pipeline segments 2 Am d th dures to provide adequate technical ]ustification for determining the extent en e proce e b full of the buffer zones used to identify pipeline segments that could affect HCAs y u y accounting for the flow charactenstics of commercially navigable waterways and minor streams in the vicimty of its pipelines that can transport releases of commodity to HCAs#

120025005_final order_06232003_text.pdf, page 53 Amend the procedures to provide adequate techmcal Iustification for determining the extent of the buffer zones used to identify pipeline segments that could affect HCAs by including an accepted, technically sound land flow analysis using site-specific spill modeling that incorporates factors such as topological and hydraulic gradients that could stretch the spi pool footpnnt, or alternatively, provide adequate techmcal lusti fications demonstrating that the overland flow assumptions being used are consistent with conservative or worst case discharge scenarios 4 Amend the procedures to include a field vahdation and quality assurance review of the results of the segment identification process to ensure that all pipeline segments that could affect a HCA have been identified 5 Withm 30 days following receipt of this Fmal Order, submit the amended procedures and all technical Iustifications demonstrating compliance with this Order to the Director, Eastern Region Office ofPipehne Safety, 400 7 Street, SW, Room 7128, Washington, DC 20590 g The Director, Eastern Region, OPS, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a wntten request by the Respondent demonstratmg good cause for an extension Failure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to $100, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for Iudhcial enforcement Under 49 C F R $ 190 215, Respondent has a nght to petition for reconsideration of this Final Order However, if the civil penalty is paid, Respondent waives the nght to petition or reconsideration The filing of a pehtion for reconsideration automahcally stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondettt's recept of thts Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s) All other terms of the order, including any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Admmistrator, upon written request, grants a stay The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt JLIN 23 2933 Date Issued Stacey Gerard Associate Admuustrator for Pipehne Safety#