{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120055005","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":"2005-03-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(3), 195.452(c)(2), 195.452(e)(1), 195.452(f)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120055005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120055005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120055005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120055005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b)(3),  195.452(c)(2),  195.452(e)(1),  195.452(f)(1). The case was opened on 2005-03-30 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-03. Proposed civil penalty: $70,000. Assessed civil penalty: $40,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120055005_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07272009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120055005/120055005_Decision%20onPetitionforReconsideration_07272009.pdf\n\n120055005_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07272009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120055005/120055005_Decision%20onPetitionforReconsideration_07272009_text.pdf\n\n120055005_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07272009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 27 2009\nMr. David A. Justin\nOperations Vice-President\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P.\nEastern Area Headquarters\n525 Fritztown Road\nSinking Spring, PA 19608\nRe: CPF No. 1-2005-5005\nDear Mr. Justin:\nEnclosed is the decision issued on the July 3, 2008 Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sunoco\nPipeline, L.P., in the above-referenced enforcement case. For the reasons discussed in the\ndecision, I have denied the Petition in part and granted it in part. When the reduced civil penalty\nof $40,000 has been paid in accordance with the terms set forth in the Final Order, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the decision constitutes service under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5050]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSunoco Pipeline, L.P., ) CPF No. 1-2005-5005\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nBackground\nOn June 10, 2008, pursuant to chapter 601, title 49 United States Code, the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), issued a Final Order in this case against Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n(Sunoco or Petitioner), finding that Petitioner had committed three violations of the Hazardous\nLiquid Pipeline Safety Regulations, codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and assessing a civil penalty\nof $50,000. Petitioner operates an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline system divided into two\nsections: The Eastern Area, consisting of pipelines in six states; and the Western Area,\nconsisting of pipelines in nine states. All three violations concerned Petitioner’s Integrity\nManagement Program (IMP).\nOn July 3, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order.\nSunoco sought reconsideration of all three findings of violation and the associated penalties.\nSunoco first argued that it opposed “paying a civil penalty for alleged failures on its part to\nimplement a complex program in conformance of regulations that were not written in the detail\nrequired to allow a pipeline operator to develop its [IMP] to meet the subsequent exacting\nexpectations of the PHMSA audit team…”1 Petitioner then provided specific arguments against\neach of the violations cited in the Final Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, a respondent may file a petition for reconsideration of a final order\nissued pursuant to § 190.213, requesting that the Associate Administrator reconsider his\ndecision. Although PHMSA does not consider repetitious information, arguments or petitions, a\nrespondent may request consideration of additional facts or arguments, provided that the\ncompany submits valid reasons why such information was not presented prior to issuance of the\n1 Petition at 1.\n\n\n\n2\ninformation or arguments that were unavailable or unknown prior to issuance of the final order,\nas well as to allow the agency to correct any error in the final order, but not to provide the\noperator with an opportunity for appeal or a de novo review.\nfinal order.2 The purpose of reconsideration is to allow a respondent to present additional\nDiscussion\nPetitioner appears to argue generally that civil penalties are inappropriate in this case because the\nfindings of violation in the Final Order were based upon IMP regulations that lacked sufficient\nrecites some of the procedural history of the IMP regulations and asserts that the Final Order\nheld Sunoco liable for failing to meet a more prescriptive standard than is enunciated in the\nregulations.\ndetail to put the company on notice as to what it was actually required to do.3 The company\nWhile Petitioner makes this argument generally, it does not provide any evidence showing how\nSunoco is being held to a standard that is inconsistent with the IMP regulations. While it is\naccurate to say that the regulations are a combination of performance-based and prescriptive\nstandards, this does not mean that operators have unfettered discretion to develop their own\nprograms. On the contrary, the IMP developed by each operator must be both technically sound\nand supported by sufficient documentation to enable OPS to verify compliance. For these\nreasons, I reject Sunoco’s general assertion that the company is being held to a standard that is\nincompatible or inconsistent with the published IMP regulations.\nPetitioner also makes arguments specific to each Item in the Final Order and are discussed\nindividually below.\nItem 1- Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(3)\nIn Item 1 of the Final Order, I found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(3) by failing\nto include in its IMP Baseline Assessment Plan (BAP) an element for the proper assessment of\npre-1970 Low Frequency-Electric Resistance Welded (LF-ERW) pipe susceptible to longitudinal\nseam failure. The regulation requires Petitioner to include in its BAP a list of the methods used\nto assess LF-ERW pipe that is susceptible to seam failure.4\nIn order to support a finding of violation of § 195.452(b)(3), Petitioner’s pipeline system must\nfirst be shown to contain pre-1970 LF-ERW pipe that is susceptible to longitudinal seam failure.\nThe Pipeline Safety Regulations presume that all pre-1970 ERW pipe is susceptible to such\nfailure unless the operator performs an engineering analysis that shows otherwise.5 Such an\nanalysis must consider the seam-related leak history of the pipe and pipe manufacturing\ninformation, as available.6\nPetitioner argues that it evaluated its pipeline system before the 2003\n2 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(b) & (c).\n3 Petition at 1.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(i).\n5 49 C.F.R. § 195.303(d).\n6 Id.\n\n\n\n3\nOPS inspection and determined that none of its pre-1970 LF-ERW pipe was susceptible to\nfailure. Petitioner asserts that its evaluation considered the testing history, failure history,\nexcavation results, pipe specifications, low operating conditions and history, and other factors in\nreaching this conclusion.7\nItem 1 of the Notice alleged that Petitioner’s BAP “does not account for the risk of [LF-ERW]\npipe. The basis for this current position is being studied, but not yet established.”8\nThe Notice\nprovided no other information as to how Sunoco failed to meet the requirement in\n§ 195.452(b)(3) that an operator’s BAP assess the risk of LF-ERW pipe in accordance with\n§ 195.452(c).9 In its Response, Sunoco contended that its original BAP did indeed account for\nthe risk of LF-ERW pipe “by including risk factors within the respective Risk Models for low-\nfrequency, pre-1970, ERW pipe. Line segments were then risk ranked to establish baseline\nassessment priorities and reassessment intervals.”10 The Final Order, however, did not address\nthis evidence but merely repeated the allegations in the Notice and noted that Sunoco had\nacknowledged, through further study subsequent to the inspection, that some of its LF-ERW pipe\n“did indeed pose a relative risk of seam failure and [that the company] had made ‘significant\nprogress’ in revising its assessment methods.”11\nUpon a careful review of the record, including the Violation Report filed by the inspector, I\nbelieve it is likely that Petitioner’s initial BAP did violate § 195.452(b)(3) by failing to document\nhow the company’s initial risk analysis determined that no LF-ERW pipe segments were\nsusceptible to longitudinal seam failure and to document that such analysis was technically\nsound. It is also clear that Petitioner’s revised analysis and changed conclusions about its LF-\nERW pipe subsequent to the date of the inspection suggest that Sunoco’s original evaluation may\nnot have adequately complied with the regulations.\nOn the other hand, neither the Notice nor the Violation Report contain a description of the\nparticular data or information that was missing from the BAP, how Sunoco’s pre-inspection risk\nanalysis failed to properly account for the risk of LF-ERW pipe, or how it was otherwise\ninadequate under § 195.452(b)(3). The agency has the burden of proving each allegation by a\npreponderance of the evidence. In this case, the entire record consists of the Violation Report,\nthe Notice, the operator’s Response, and the Petition. Faced with Petitioner’s assertion that its\ninitial evaluation showed that none of its LF-ERW pipe was susceptible to seam failure and\nfinding no information or evidence in the record to contradict the validity of Sunoco’s original\n7 Petition at 2.\n8 Notice at 1.\n9 49 C.F.R. 195.452(c)(1)(i) provides that a BAP must include “[t]he methods selected to assess the integrity of the\nline pipe. An operator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following methods. The methods an\noperator selects to assess low frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to\nlongitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of detecting corrosion and deformation\nanomalies….”\n10 Response at 1.\n11 Final Order at 2.\n\n\n\n4\nanalysis and BAP, I find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to prove that the\ncompany violated § 195.452(b)(3) as of the July 2003 inspection.\nAccordingly, I grant the Petition for Reconsideration with respect to Item 1 of the Final Order.\nThe finding of violation and the associated reduced $10,000 civil penalty are hereby withdrawn.\nItem 2a – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1)\nIn Item 2(a) of the Final Order, I found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1) by\nfailing to demonstrate that its BAP schedule prioritized the assessment of pipeline segments by\nthe level of risk that they posed to High Consequence Areas (HCAs).12 PHMSA acknowledged\nthat Petitioner’s risk models did include certain risk factors related to population density,\nenvironmental damage, and river crossings, but found that the models were not directly\ncorrelated to actual HCA locations.13\nPetitioner admitted that its pre-inspection risk models were “basic,” but argued that the company\nnonetheless considered HCAs when prioritizing the assessment of pipeline segments.14\nPetitioner argued that it “utilized the information available in the National Pipeline Mapping\nno additional evidence, however, in support of this argument.\nSystem to identify locations where [its] pipelines could impact [HCAs].”15 Petitioner provided\nThe BAP regulation requires operators to prioritize the assessment of pipeline segments that\npresent the greatest risk to HCAs. In order to meet this requirement, operators must have an\naccurate indication of the probability and consequences of all threats to each HCA that could be\naffected. The record contains risk models for Petitioner’s Western and Eastern Area pipelines.\n16\nThese models list certain “consequence factors” for population, environmentally sensitive areas\nmodels do not include any information indicating whether or how Petitioner incorporated actual\nHCA data into its risk models.\nand pipeline flow rates.17 While these factors appear related to certain types of HCAs, the risk\n12 An HCA is defined as: (1) A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial\nlikelihood of commercial navigation exists; (2) A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined\nand delineated by the Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least\n1,000 people per square mile; (3) An other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the\nCensus Bureau, that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town,\nvillage, or other designated residential or commercial area; (4) An unusually sensitive area. See\n49 C.F.R. § 195.450.\n13 Violation Report at 5. HCA data and locations are found in the National Pipeline Mapping System.\n14 Petition at 3.\n15 Id.\n16 Sunoco Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (Sunoco IMP), Sections 4.1 and 4.2 (June 9, 2003).\n17 Sunoco IMP Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.4.\n\n\n\n5\nThe record also contains charts of risk information for Petitioner’s pipeline systems.18 These\ncharts contain references to generalized consequence factors such as “population density - %\nurban, [number] of river crossings, Environmental damage severity, [etc.],19 but provide no\nindication as to how actual HCA data was used in the risk modeling process. Absent some\nrecord that Petitioner considered the potential consequences of releases on each specific HCA,\nOPS cannot assume that Petitioner accurately prioritized its pipeline segments. Presumably, an\nassessment of the potential consequences of a spill on each HCA would have generated\ndocumentation that Petitioner is required to maintain.\ndocumentation.\n20 The record, however, contains no such\nPetitioner also argued that OPS had taken issue during the inspection with the company’s use of\na process called “dynamic segmentation” to divide its pipeline system into segments by using the\nbeginning and ending boundaries of HCAs along the pipeline, as compared to a “weighted\nsegmentation based on physical pipeline beginning and endings and/or facility locations.”21\nWhatever the importance or impact of dynamic segmentation may be, it is not mentioned in the\nNotice, Final Order or elsewhere in the record and Petitioner fails to show how it is relevant to or\nrefutes the allegations in Item 2(a). Therefore, I cannot consider it here.\nUpon consideration of all the evidence in the record, I find no basis for the withdrawal of the\nfinding of violation or civil penalty for Item 2(a). Accordingly, the terms of the Final Order\nregarding this Item shall remain in effect.\nItem 2c – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1)\nIn Item 2(c) of the Final Order, I found that the Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1) by\nfailing to establish a BAP assessment schedule for its Eastern Area based upon a risk model that\ntook into account all risk factors for that portion of its system. The Final Order found that\nPetitioner failed to include three specific risk factors (i.e., pipeline depth of cover, internal\ncorrosion and operational factors) and that it only addressed such factors implicitly.22 PHMSA\nfound that Sunoco’s risk model “did not articulate the factors in a manner that could be clearly\nin fact, provide for those risks. Petitioner provided no additional arguments or evidence to\ncontradict the evidence in the Violation Report or the findings in the Final Order. Unlike the\nsituation in Item 2(a) above, a review of the record confirms that the Notice did specify the three\nbe reliably validated. These allegations were supported by the Violation Report and properly\nweighed and addressed in the Final Order.\nidentified or reliably validated.”23 In its Petition, Petitioner simply stated that its risk model did,\nfactors that Petitioner’s risk model failed to identify in such a way that their consideration could\n18 Response, Attachment 2A, Sunoco Data Entry Worksheets (The worksheets appear to be dated May 21, 2002).\n19 Id.\n20 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l).\n21 Petition at 3.\n22 Final Order at 4.\n23 Id.\n\n\n\n6\nTherefore, I find no basis for withdrawal of the finding of violation or the civil penalty for Item\n2(c). Accordingly, the terms of the Final Order regarding this Item shall remain in effect.\nRelief\nUpon consideration of Petitioner’s request for reconsideration and a review of all of the\nevidence, I grant the Petition for Reconsideration with respect to Item 1 and withdraw the\nassociated reduced civil penalty of $10,000. Therefore, the total civil penalty assessed in the\nFinal Order is reduced to $40,000. All other terms of the Final Order shall remain in effect. This\ndecision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\n_______________________________ ________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17005}