# INLAND CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

120175003_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Final%20Order_03072018_text.pdf

120175003_Final Order__03072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Final%20Order__03072018.pdf

120175003_NOPV PCP_02062017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_NOPV%20PCP_02062017.pdf

120175003_NOPV PCP_02062017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_NOPV%20PCP_02062017_text.pdf

120175003_Operator Pre Hearing Submission_05302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120175003/120175003_Operator%20Pre%20Hearing%20Submission_05302017.pdf

120175003_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

120175003_Final Order__03072018.pdf

U.S. Department
Nashington DC 20590
1200 New Jersey Avenue SB
of Transportation
MAR 07 2018
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Mr. David Chalson
Senior Vice President, Operations
Inland Corporation
4041 Market Street
Aston, PA 19014-3197
Re: CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Dear Mr. Chalson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegation of violation and the proposed civil penalty of $55,200. This enforcement action is
now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ra Kalen
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Cc:
Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Kevin Dunleavy, Assistant General Counsel, Sunoco GP LL/Sunoco Logistics,
3801 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
Inland Corporation,
CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Respondent.
-
FINAL ORDER
On October 14-15, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Inland Corporation
(Inland or Respondent) in Canton, Ohio. Inland consists of approximately 586 miles of refined
products pipelines and facilities that service refineries and terminal markets across Ohio. In
2011, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP acquired a controlling financial interest in Inland
Corporation, and is now the operator of the Inland pipeline system and majority owner.'
As a result of the inspection, the Acting Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 6, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Inland violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $55,200 for the
alleged violation.
On behalt of Inland, Sunoco Pipeline, LP (SPLP), responded to the Notice by letter dated
February 27, 2017 (Response). SPLP contested the allegation and requested a hearing. A
hearing was subsequently held on June 7, 2017, in West Trenton, New Jersey, with an attorney
from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided a
post-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated June 30, 2017 (Closing).
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a), which states:
'Sunoco Logistics Press Release, website, available at
pany.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2017).
http://sitemanager.pdigm.com/user/file/Ohio/Sunoco_Pipeline_LP_Inland Corporation Mid_Valley Pipeline Com



CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Page 2
§ 195.248 Cover over buried pipeline.
(a) Unless specifically exempted in this subpart, all pipe must be buried
so that it is below the level of cultivation. Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, the pipe must be installed so that the cover between the
top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater
natural bottom (as determined by recognized and generally accepted
practices), as applicable, complies with the following table:
Cover inches (millimeters)
Location
For normal
For rock"
excavation
excavation
Industrial, commercial, and residential areas........
36(914)
30(762)
Crossing of inland bodies of water with a width of at least 100 feet (30.5 millimeters) from
48(1219)
18(457)
high
water mark to high water mark
Drainage ditches at public roads and railroads.
36(914)
36(914)
Deepwater port safety zones.
Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep as measured from
48 (1219)
36 (914)
24(610)
mean low water
18(457)
low water.
Other offshore areas under water less than 12 ft (3.7 meters) deep as measured from mean
36(914)
18(457)
Any other area.
' Rock excavation is any excavation that requires blasting or removal by equivalent means.
30 (762)
18(457)
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) by failing to ensure that all
pipe be buried so that it is below the level of cultivation, and installed so that the cover between
the top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater natural bottom
complies with specific depth of cover (DOC) requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Inland failed to bury a portion of line segment 13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 to a 36-inch DOC, as
required for industrial, commercial, and residential areas. When reviewing Inland's records of
the pipeline replacement, OPS relied on photographs of the work site and statements by the
Respondent in determining the requisite DOC was not achieved.
In its response and at the hearing, SPLP denied that it was in violation of § 195.248(a) because,
at the time of the inspection, construction was ongoing and therefore the DOC at the time of the
inspection was not intended to be final. Alternatively, Inland asserted that, at the time of the
inspection, the 14-inch DOC was permissible under § 195.248(b), which provides an exception
to DOC requirements if an operator deems the minimal cover requirements "impractical."
At the hearing, SPLP laid out the timing of the construction and inspection activity. On October
13, 2015, SPLP initiated the pipeline replacement by exposing a portion of line segment 13224
SUFF-CNTN-5. From October 14-15, OPS conducted its inspection, which included a physical
inspection of the construction site and a records review. SPLP argued that, at the time of OPS'
inspection, admittedly, it had not yet achieved 36-inch DOC; however, construction activity was
ongoing.



CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Page 3
OPS contradicted that account, and argued that, on October 14, 2015, an OPS inspector
reviewing constructions records noted a post-construction photo and asked for the final DOC.
According to OPS, the construction manager self-reported that the segment was backfilled to a
DOC of 14-inches, and that it was only upon OPS advice that the construction site was backfilled
to the required 36-inch DOC.
OPS presented two pieces of evidence in support of its contention that SPLP failed to provide the
requisite DOC, and only after prodding by OPS, installed additional cover. The first' was the
summary of an interview by Mr. Steve Scotto, who was the project manager for the pipeline
replacement. The PSVR states that Mr. Scotto "Determined remedial measures to be taken after
the issue was identified by PHMSA" and "Stated that the replacement segment of the pipeline
had been backfilled to 14-inches. The second' piece of evidence consists of two photos of the
construction site on October 13 and October 15, 2015, both of which were taken by Respondent
and provided to OPS. The first photo shows the dig site, various construction apparatus, and a
bulldozer on October 13, 2015. The second photo is of the construction site after the Respondent
installed 36-inches of cover. OPS captioned this photo "13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 feature 13-01 dig
site after repair and remediation of cover on 10/15/15."
In support of its assertion that SPLP was still in the process of backfilling SUFF-CNTN-5,
Respondent presented an invoice showing the material used to backfill the pipeline was ordered
prior to the inspection. It also presented testimony by Al Kravatz, Jay Dresh, and Stephen
Scotto, SPLP personnel present during the construction activity, that the project was ongoing on
October 14, 2015. SPLP also offered various documents into evidence to argue that SPLP
delayed backfilling the site to ascertain compliance with the Army Corps permit conditions.
OPS bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that an operator violated the pipeline safety
regulations. I find that, in this case, OPS did not carry its burden. There is contradictory
testimony on the issue of whether the construction activity was complete. While OPS maintains
that SPLP volunteered this information, the Respondent squarely denies that it ever told
inspectors that construction was complete. The only photographic evidence that OPS provided
in support of its allegation was taken by the Respondent, and OPS did not provide any other
record or photograph in support of its contention that construction was completed as of on
October 13th or 14h. In fact, the only photographs proffered were taken by the Respondent and
show: (1) a construction site at which construction activity is clearly ongoing (October 13); and
(2) a completely remediated site with the requisite DOC (October 15").
Accordingly, after considering the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that OPS did
not present sufficient evidence proving that the construction activity was complete, and therefore
that SPLP violated DOC requirements.
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (PSVR), 7.
3 PSVR, Exhibit A-l.



CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Page 4
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent's culpability; the history
of Respondent's prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline
safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation
without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may
require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $55,200 for the violations cited above.
As discussed above, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a).
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
MAR 07 2018
Man K. Mayberry
Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).

120175003_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf

March 7, 2018
Mr. David Chalson
Senior Vice President, Operations
Inland Corporation
4041 Market Street
Aston, PA 19014-3197
Re: CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Dear Mr. Chalson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegation of violation and the proposed civil penalty of $55,200. This enforcement action is
now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Kevin Dunleavy, Assistant General Counsel, Sunoco GP LLC/Sunoco Logistics,
3801 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Inland Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2017-5003
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On October 14-15, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Inland Corporation
(Inland or Respondent) in Canton, Ohio. Inland consists of approximately 586 miles of refined
products pipelines and facilities that service refineries and terminal markets across Ohio. In
2011, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP acquired a controlling financial interest in Inland
Corporation, and is now the operator of the Inland pipeline system and majority owner.1
As a result of the inspection, the Acting Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 6, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Inland violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $55,200 for the
alleged violation.
On behalf of Inland, Sunoco Pipeline, LP (SPLP), responded to the Notice by letter dated
February 27, 2017 (Response). SPLP contested the allegation and requested a hearing. A
hearing was subsequently held on June 7, 2017, in West Trenton, New Jersey, with an attorney
from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided a
post-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated June 30, 2017 (Closing).
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a), which states:
1Sunoco Logistics Press Release, website, available at
http://sitemanager.pdigm.com/user/file/Ohio/Sunoco Pipeline LP Inland Corporation Mid Valley Pipeline Com
pany.pdf (last accessed December 5, 2017).



CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Page 2
§ 195.248 Cover over buried pipeline.
(a) Unless specifically exempted in this subpart, all pipe must be buried
so that it is below the level of cultivation. Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, the pipe must be installed so that the cover between the
top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater
natural bottom (as determined by recognized and generally accepted
practices), as applicable, complies with the following table:
Cover inches (millimeters)
Location
For normal
excavation
For rock1
excavation
Industrial, commercial, and residential areas………………………………………................. 36 (914) 30 (762)
48 (1219) 18 (457)
Crossing of inland bodies of water with a width of at least 100 feet (30.5 millimeters) from
high
water mark to high water mark………………………………………………………………..
Drainage ditches at public roads and railroads………………………………………………... Deepwater port safety zones…………………………………………………………………... 48 (1219) 24 (610)
Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep as measured from
mean low water………………………………………………………………….......................
36 (914) 36 (914)
36 (914) 18 (457)
Other offshore areas under water less than 12 ft (3.7 meters) deep as measured from mean
low water…………………………………………………………………................................
36 (914) 18 (457)
Any other area…………………………………………………………………........................ 30 (762) 18 (457)
1 Rock excavation is any excavation that requires blasting or removal by equivalent means.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a) by failing to ensure that all
pipe be buried so that it is below the level of cultivation, and installed so that the cover between
the top of the pipe and the ground level, road bed, river bottom, or underwater natural bottom
complies with specific depth of cover (DOC) requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Inland failed to bury a portion of line segment 13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 to a 36-inch DOC, as
required for industrial, commercial, and residential areas. When reviewing Inland’s records of
the pipeline replacement, OPS relied on photographs of the work site and statements by the
Respondent in determining the requisite DOC was not achieved.
In its response and at the hearing, SPLP denied that it was in violation of § 195.248(a) because,
at the time of the inspection, construction was ongoing and therefore the DOC at the time of the
inspection was not intended to be final. Alternatively, Inland asserted that, at the time of the
inspection, the 14-inch DOC was permissible under § 195.248(b), which provides an exception
to DOC requirements if an operator deems the minimal cover requirements “impractical.”
At the hearing, SPLP laid out the timing of the construction and inspection activity. On October
13, 2015, SPLP initiated the pipeline replacement by exposing a portion of line segment 13224
SUFF-CNTN-5. From October 14-15, OPS conducted its inspection, which included a physical
inspection of the construction site and a records review. SPLP argued that, at the time of OPS’
inspection, admittedly, it had not yet achieved 36-inch DOC; however, construction activity was
ongoing.



CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Page 3
OPS contradicted that account, and argued that, on October 14, 2015, an OPS inspector
reviewing constructions records noted a post-construction photo and asked for the final DOC.
According to OPS, the construction manager self-reported that the segment was backfilled to a
DOC of 14-inches, and that it was only upon OPS advice that the construction site was backfilled
to the required 36-inch DOC.
OPS presented two pieces of evidence in support of its contention that SPLP failed to provide the
requisite DOC, and only after prodding by OPS, installed additional cover. The first2 was the
summary of an interview by Mr. Steve Scotto, who was the project manager for the pipeline
replacement. The PSVR states that Mr. Scotto “Determined remedial measures to be taken after
the issue was identified by PHMSA” and “Stated that the replacement segment of the pipeline
had been backfilled to 14-inches. The second3 piece of evidence consists of two photos of the
construction site on October 13 and October 15, 2015, both of which were taken by Respondent
and provided to OPS. The first photo shows the dig site, various construction apparatus, and a
bulldozer on October 13, 2015. The second photo is of the construction site after the Respondent
installed 36-inches of cover. OPS captioned this photo “13224 SUFF-CNTN-5 feature 13-01 dig
site after repair and remediation of cover on 10/15/15.”
In support of its assertion that SPLP was still in the process of backfilling SUFF-CNTN-5,
Respondent presented an invoice showing the material used to backfill the pipeline was ordered
prior to the inspection. It also presented testimony by Al Kravatz, Jay Dresh, and Stephen
Scotto, SPLP personnel present during the construction activity, that the project was ongoing on
October 14, 2015. SPLP also offered various documents into evidence to argue that SPLP
delayed backfilling the site to ascertain compliance with the Army Corps permit conditions.
OPS bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that an operator violated the pipeline safety
regulations. I find that, in this case, OPS did not carry its burden. There is contradictory
testimony on the issue of whether the construction activity was complete. While OPS maintains
that SPLP volunteered this information, the Respondent squarely denies that it ever told
inspectors that construction was complete. The only photographic evidence that OPS provided
in support of its allegation was taken by the Respondent, and OPS did not provide any other
record or photograph in support of its contention that construction was completed as of on
October 13th or 14th. In fact, the only photographs proffered were taken by the Respondent and
show: (1) a construction site at which construction activity is clearly ongoing (October 13th); and
(2) a completely remediated site with the requisite DOC (October 15th).
Accordingly, after considering the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that OPS did
not present sufficient evidence proving that the construction activity was complete, and therefore
that SPLP violated DOC requirements.
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (PSVR), 7.
3 PSVR, Exhibit A-1.



CPF No. 1-2017-5003
Page 4
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline
safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation
without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may
require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $55,200 for the violations cited above.
As discussed above, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a).
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
March 7, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 22855