{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120175003","title":"INLAND CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-02-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.248(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120175003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120175003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving INLAND CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.248(a). The case was opened on 2017-02-06 and is reported as closed as of 2018-03-07. Proposed civil penalty: $55,200. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120175003_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Final%20Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\n120175003_Final Order__03072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Final%20Order__03072018.pdf\n\n120175003_NOPV PCP_02062017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_NOPV%20PCP_02062017.pdf\n\n120175003_NOPV PCP_02062017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_NOPV%20PCP_02062017_text.pdf\n\n120175003_Operator Pre Hearing Submission_05302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Operator%20Pre%20Hearing%20Submission_05302017.pdf\n\n120175003_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_02272017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_02272017.pdf\n\n120175003_Final Order__03072018.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nNashington DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SB\nof Transportation\nMAR 07 2018\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nMr. David Chalson\nSenior Vice President, Operations\nInland Corporation\n4041 Market Street\nAston, PA 19014-3197\nRe: CPF No. 1-2017-5003\nDear Mr. Chalson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegation of violation and the proposed civil penalty of $55,200. This enforcement action is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nRa Kalen\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCc:\nDirector, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Kevin Dunleavy, Assistant General Counsel, Sunoco GP LL/Sunoco Logistics,\n3801 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nInland Corporation,\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nRespondent.\n-\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 14-15, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Inland Corporation\n(Inland or Respondent) in Canton, Ohio. Inland consists of approximately 586 miles of refined\nproducts pipelines and facilities that service refineries and terminal markets across Ohio. In\n2011, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP acquired a controlling financial interest in Inland\nCorporation, and is now the operator of the Inland pipeline system and majority owner.'\nAs a result of the inspection, the Acting Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 6, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nInland violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $55,200 for the\nalleged violation.\nOn behalt of Inland, Sunoco Pipeline, LP (SPLP), responded to the Notice by letter dated\nFebruary 27, 2017 (Response). SPLP contested the allegation and requested a hearing. A\nhearing was subsequently held on June 7, 2017, in West Trenton, New Jersey, with an attorney\nfrom the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided a\npost-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated June 30, 2017 (Closing).\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a), which states:\n'Sunoco Logistics Press Release, website, available at\npany.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2017).\nhttp://sitemanager.pdigm.com/user/file/Ohio/Sunoco_Pipeline_LP_Inland Corporation Mid_Valley Pipeline Com\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nPage 2\n§ 195.248 Cover over buried pipeline.\n(a) Unless specifically exempted in this subpart, all pipe must be buried\nso that it is below the level of cultivation. Except as provided in paragraph\n(b) of this section, the pipe must be installed so that the cover between the\ntop of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater\nnatural bottom (as determined by recognized and generally accepted\npractices), as applicable, complies with the following table:\nCover inches (millimeters)\nLocation\nFor normal\nFor rock\"\nexcavation\nexcavation\nIndustrial, commercial, and residential areas........\n36(914)\n30(762)\nCrossing of inland bodies of water with a width of at least 100 feet (30.5 millimeters) from\n48(1219)\n18(457)\nhigh\nwater mark to high water mark\nDrainage ditches at public roads and railroads.\n36(914)\n36(914)\nDeepwater port safety zones.\nGulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep as measured from\n48 (1219)\n36 (914)\n24(610)\nmean low water\n18(457)\nlow water.\nOther offshore areas under water less than 12 ft (3.7 meters) deep as measured from mean\n36(914)\n18(457)\nAny other area.\n' Rock excavation is any excavation that requires blasting or removal by equivalent means.\n30 (762)\n18(457)\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) by failing to ensure that all\npipe be buried so that it is below the level of cultivation, and installed so that the cover between\nthe top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater natural bottom\ncomplies with specific depth of cover (DOC) requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nInland failed to bury a portion of line segment 13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 to a 36-inch DOC, as\nrequired for industrial, commercial, and residential areas. When reviewing Inland's records of\nthe pipeline replacement, OPS relied on photographs of the work site and statements by the\nRespondent in determining the requisite DOC was not achieved.\nIn its response and at the hearing, SPLP denied that it was in violation of § 195.248(a) because,\nat the time of the inspection, construction was ongoing and therefore the DOC at the time of the\ninspection was not intended to be final. Alternatively, Inland asserted that, at the time of the\ninspection, the 14-inch DOC was permissible under § 195.248(b), which provides an exception\nto DOC requirements if an operator deems the minimal cover requirements \"impractical.\"\nAt the hearing, SPLP laid out the timing of the construction and inspection activity. On October\n13, 2015, SPLP initiated the pipeline replacement by exposing a portion of line segment 13224\nSUFF-CNTN-5. From October 14-15, OPS conducted its inspection, which included a physical\ninspection of the construction site and a records review. SPLP argued that, at the time of OPS'\ninspection, admittedly, it had not yet achieved 36-inch DOC; however, construction activity was\nongoing.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nPage 3\nOPS contradicted that account, and argued that, on October 14, 2015, an OPS inspector\nreviewing constructions records noted a post-construction photo and asked for the final DOC.\nAccording to OPS, the construction manager self-reported that the segment was backfilled to a\nDOC of 14-inches, and that it was only upon OPS advice that the construction site was backfilled\nto the required 36-inch DOC.\nOPS presented two pieces of evidence in support of its contention that SPLP failed to provide the\nrequisite DOC, and only after prodding by OPS, installed additional cover. The first' was the\nsummary of an interview by Mr. Steve Scotto, who was the project manager for the pipeline\nreplacement. The PSVR states that Mr. Scotto \"Determined remedial measures to be taken after\nthe issue was identified by PHMSA\" and \"Stated that the replacement segment of the pipeline\nhad been backfilled to 14-inches. The second' piece of evidence consists of two photos of the\nconstruction site on October 13 and October 15, 2015, both of which were taken by Respondent\nand provided to OPS. The first photo shows the dig site, various construction apparatus, and a\nbulldozer on October 13, 2015. The second photo is of the construction site after the Respondent\ninstalled 36-inches of cover. OPS captioned this photo \"13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 feature 13-01 dig\nsite after repair and remediation of cover on 10/15/15.\"\nIn support of its assertion that SPLP was still in the process of backfilling SUFF-CNTN-5,\nRespondent presented an invoice showing the material used to backfill the pipeline was ordered\nprior to the inspection. It also presented testimony by Al Kravatz, Jay Dresh, and Stephen\nScotto, SPLP personnel present during the construction activity, that the project was ongoing on\nOctober 14, 2015. SPLP also offered various documents into evidence to argue that SPLP\ndelayed backfilling the site to ascertain compliance with the Army Corps permit conditions.\nOPS bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that an operator violated the pipeline safety\nregulations. I find that, in this case, OPS did not carry its burden. There is contradictory\ntestimony on the issue of whether the construction activity was complete. While OPS maintains\nthat SPLP volunteered this information, the Respondent squarely denies that it ever told\ninspectors that construction was complete. The only photographic evidence that OPS provided\nin support of its allegation was taken by the Respondent, and OPS did not provide any other\nrecord or photograph in support of its contention that construction was completed as of on\nOctober 13th or 14h. In fact, the only photographs proffered were taken by the Respondent and\nshow: (1) a construction site at which construction activity is clearly ongoing (October 13); and\n(2) a completely remediated site with the requisite DOC (October 15\").\nAccordingly, after considering the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that OPS did\nnot present sufficient evidence proving that the construction activity was complete, and therefore\nthat SPLP violated DOC requirements.\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (PSVR), 7.\n3 PSVR, Exhibit A-l.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nPage 4\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent's culpability; the history\nof Respondent's prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation\nwithout any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may\nrequire. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $55,200 for the violations cited above.\nAs discussed above, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a).\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMAR 07 2018\nMan K. Mayberry\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n120175003_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\nMarch 7, 2018\nMr. David Chalson\nSenior Vice President, Operations\nInland Corporation\n4041 Market Street\nAston, PA 19014-3197\nRe: CPF No. 1-2017-5003\nDear Mr. Chalson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegation of violation and the proposed civil penalty of $55,200. This enforcement action is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Kevin Dunleavy, Assistant General Counsel, Sunoco GP LLC/Sunoco Logistics,\n3801 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nInland Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 14-15, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Inland Corporation\n(Inland or Respondent) in Canton, Ohio. Inland consists of approximately 586 miles of refined\nproducts pipelines and facilities that service refineries and terminal markets across Ohio. In\n2011, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP acquired a controlling financial interest in Inland\nCorporation, and is now the operator of the Inland pipeline system and majority owner.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Acting Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 6, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nInland violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $55,200 for the\nalleged violation.\nOn behalf of Inland, Sunoco Pipeline, LP (SPLP), responded to the Notice by letter dated\nFebruary 27, 2017 (Response). SPLP contested the allegation and requested a hearing. A\nhearing was subsequently held on June 7, 2017, in West Trenton, New Jersey, with an attorney\nfrom the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided a\npost-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated June 30, 2017 (Closing).\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a), which states:\n1Sunoco Logistics Press Release, website, available at\nhttp://sitemanager.pdigm.com/user/file/Ohio/Sunoco Pipeline LP Inland Corporation Mid Valley Pipeline Com\npany.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nPage 2\n§ 195.248 Cover over buried pipeline.\n(a) Unless specifically exempted in this subpart, all pipe must be buried\nso that it is below the level of cultivation. Except as provided in paragraph\n(b) of this section, the pipe must be installed so that the cover between the\ntop of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater\nnatural bottom (as determined by recognized and generally accepted\npractices), as applicable, complies with the following table:\nCover inches (millimeters)\nLocation\nFor normal\nexcavation\nFor rock1\nexcavation\nIndustrial, commercial, and residential areas………………………………………................. 36 (914) 30 (762)\n48 (1219) 18 (457)\nCrossing of inland bodies of water with a width of at least 100 feet (30.5 millimeters) from\nhigh\nwater mark to high water mark………………………………………………………………..\nDrainage ditches at public roads and railroads………………………………………………... Deepwater port safety zones…………………………………………………………………... 48 (1219) 24 (610)\nGulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep as measured from\nmean low water………………………………………………………………….......................\n36 (914) 36 (914)\n36 (914) 18 (457)\nOther offshore areas under water less than 12 ft (3.7 meters) deep as measured from mean\nlow water…………………………………………………………………................................\n36 (914) 18 (457)\nAny other area…………………………………………………………………........................ 30 (762) 18 (457)\n1 Rock excavation is any excavation that requires blasting or removal by equivalent means.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) by failing to ensure that all\npipe be buried so that it is below the level of cultivation, and installed so that the cover between\nthe top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater natural bottom\ncomplies with specific depth of cover (DOC) requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nInland failed to bury a portion of line segment 13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 to a 36-inch DOC, as\nrequired for industrial, commercial, and residential areas. When reviewing Inland’s records of\nthe pipeline replacement, OPS relied on photographs of the work site and statements by the\nRespondent in determining the requisite DOC was not achieved.\nIn its response and at the hearing, SPLP denied that it was in violation of § 195.248(a) because,\nat the time of the inspection, construction was ongoing and therefore the DOC at the time of the\ninspection was not intended to be final. Alternatively, Inland asserted that, at the time of the\ninspection, the 14-inch DOC was permissible under § 195.248(b), which provides an exception\nto DOC requirements if an operator deems the minimal cover requirements “impractical.”\nAt the hearing, SPLP laid out the timing of the construction and inspection activity. On October\n13, 2015, SPLP initiated the pipeline replacement by exposing a portion of line segment 13224\nSUFF-CNTN-5. From October 14-15, OPS conducted its inspection, which included a physical\ninspection of the construction site and a records review. SPLP argued that, at the time of OPS’\ninspection, admittedly, it had not yet achieved 36-inch DOC; however, construction activity was\nongoing.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nPage 3\nOPS contradicted that account, and argued that, on October 14, 2015, an OPS inspector\nreviewing constructions records noted a post-construction photo and asked for the final DOC.\nAccording to OPS, the construction manager self-reported that the segment was backfilled to a\nDOC of 14-inches, and that it was only upon OPS advice that the construction site was backfilled\nto the required 36-inch DOC.\nOPS presented two pieces of evidence in support of its contention that SPLP failed to provide the\nrequisite DOC, and only after prodding by OPS, installed additional cover. The first2 was the\nsummary of an interview by Mr. Steve Scotto, who was the project manager for the pipeline\nreplacement. The PSVR states that Mr. Scotto “Determined remedial measures to be taken after\nthe issue was identified by PHMSA” and “Stated that the replacement segment of the pipeline\nhad been backfilled to 14-inches. The second3 piece of evidence consists of two photos of the\nconstruction site on October 13 and October 15, 2015, both of which were taken by Respondent\nand provided to OPS. The first photo shows the dig site, various construction apparatus, and a\nbulldozer on October 13, 2015. The second photo is of the construction site after the Respondent\ninstalled 36-inches of cover. OPS captioned this photo “13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 feature 13-01 dig\nsite after repair and remediation of cover on 10/15/15.”\nIn support of its assertion that SPLP was still in the process of backfilling SUFF-CNTN-5,\nRespondent presented an invoice showing the material used to backfill the pipeline was ordered\nprior to the inspection. It also presented testimony by Al Kravatz, Jay Dresh, and Stephen\nScotto, SPLP personnel present during the construction activity, that the project was ongoing on\nOctober 14, 2015. SPLP also offered various documents into evidence to argue that SPLP\ndelayed backfilling the site to ascertain compliance with the Army Corps permit conditions.\nOPS bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that an operator violated the pipeline safety\nregulations. I find that, in this case, OPS did not carry its burden. There is contradictory\ntestimony on the issue of whether the construction activity was complete. While OPS maintains\nthat SPLP volunteered this information, the Respondent squarely denies that it ever told\ninspectors that construction was complete. The only photographic evidence that OPS provided\nin support of its allegation was taken by the Respondent, and OPS did not provide any other\nrecord or photograph in support of its contention that construction was completed as of on\nOctober 13th or 14th. In fact, the only photographs proffered were taken by the Respondent and\nshow: (1) a construction site at which construction activity is clearly ongoing (October 13th); and\n(2) a completely remediated site with the requisite DOC (October 15th).\nAccordingly, after considering the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that OPS did\nnot present sufficient evidence proving that the construction activity was complete, and therefore\nthat SPLP violated DOC requirements.\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (PSVR), 7.\n3 PSVR, Exhibit A-1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-5003\nPage 4\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation\nwithout any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may\nrequire. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $55,200 for the violations cited above.\nAs discussed above, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a).\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 7, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).","truncated":false,"body_characters":22855}