{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120185010","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":"2018-01-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(a), 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120185010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.428(a),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2018-01-18 and is reported as closed as of 2018-10-04. Proposed civil penalty: $127,000. Assessed civil penalty: $121,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120185010_Final Order_09182018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185010/120185010_Final%20Order_09182018.pdf\n\n120185010_Final Order_09182018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185010/120185010_Final%20Order_09182018_text.pdf\n\n120185010_NOPV-PCP_01182018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185010/120185010_NOPV-PCP_01182018.pdf\n\n120185010_NOPV-PCP_01182018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185010/120185010_NOPV-PCP_01182018_text.pdf\n\n120185010_Operator Response To Notice_ 02282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185010/120185010_Operator%20Response%20To%20Notice_%2002282018.pdf\n\n120185010_Final Order_09182018_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 18, 2018\nMr. Kelcy L. Warren\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 1-2018-5010\nDear Mr. Warren:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nSunoco Pipeline, LP. It makes findings of violation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of\n$121,200. This acknowledges receipt of a partial payment of $51,400, by wire transfer dated\nMarch 20, 2018. The payment terms for the remaining penalty due, in the amount of $69,800,\nare set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of\npayment. 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: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Ryan Coffey, Executive VP of Operations, Energy Transfer Partners, LP, 800 East\nSonterra Boulevard, San Antonio, TX 78258\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nSunoco Pipeline, LP, )\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 1-2018-5010\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May 22-26, 2017, 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 the Sunoco\nPipeline, LP (Sunoco or Respondent) Logan System in Boston, Massachusetts. Sunoco\ntransports refined petroleum products and crude oil. In its 2016 annual reports, Sunoco reported\nthat it operated 6,384 miles of jurisdictional interstate and intrastate hazardous liquid\ntransmission pipelines across 11 states, and operated 267 jurisdictional breakout tanks in eight\nstates.1 Sunoco Pipeline, LP, is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, LP.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated January 18, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Sunoco had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.428(a) and 195.583(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$127,000 for the alleged violations.\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP, responded to the Notice on behalf of Respondent by letter dated\nFebruary 28, 2018 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation, offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty for\none of the alleged violations be reduced. Sunoco paid the proposed civil penalty of $51,400 for\nItem 2 on March 20, 2018. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator to make a finding of violation for Item 2 and to issue this\nfinal order without further proceedings.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Jan. 18, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 See http://www.sunocologistics.com/ (last visited May 15, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5010\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Sunoco violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach item of pressure-control equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year, to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition,\nand is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco failed to inspect the pump station\ndischarge, line pressure and suction pressure-control devices (transmitters) for the pump units at\nthe East Boston Terminal, at an interval not exceeding 15 months. These devices are used to\ncontrol and regulate pipeline pressures. During the inspection, PHMSA inspectors reviewed\nrecords of inspections of pressure transmitters. These records indicated that Sunoco inspected\nthe pump station discharge, line pressure and suction pressure transmitters on January 14, 2014,\nand January 15, 2014. The next inspections were not performed until July 16, 2015, and July 17,\n2015, 92 days after the 15-month deadline.\nAlthough Sunoco indicated that it was not contesting the alleged violation, it did ask for a\nreduction in the penalty on the basis that one of the three transmitters identified in the allegation\nwas not subject to the regulation. Sunoco agreed that the pump-station discharge and line-\npressure transmitters were utilized in the overpressure-protection system design to regulate\npipeline pressure and thereby provide overpressure protection, as required by § 195.428.\nHowever, it stated that the suction pressure-control device was exempt from § 195.428 because it\nwas not a covered pipeline, as defined by § 195.1(b)(9)(ii).3 That section reads:\n(b) Excepted. This Part does not apply to any of the following:\n. . .\n(9) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide:\n(i) . . .\n(ii) Through facilities located on the grounds of a materials\ntransportation terminal if the facilities are used exclusively to\n3 Response, at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5010\nPage 3\ntransfer hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide between non-pipeline\nmodes of transportation or between a non-pipeline mode and a\npipeline. These facilities do not include any device and associated\npiping that are necessary to control pressure in the pipeline under\n§ 195.406(b); …\nSunoco noted that the suction pressure-control device was upstream of the suction side of the\npump(s) and was located on the piping that is excepted from regulation. It also explained that\nthe suction pressure control device\n“\n. . . does not operate in a manner that provides any input or control\nto the overpressure protection system design of the pipeline from the\ndischarge of the pump to the delivery point of product at the airport.\nThis transmitter is located on excepted from regulation, non-\njurisdictional piping coming from storage tankage to the suction side\nof the pump(s). This transmitter is in place to detect low pressure on\nthis upstream piping and protect the pump(s) from damage in the\ncase of a low suction pressure scenario.”4\nI agree with Sunoco’s determination that the suction pressure-control device is a pressure\ntransmitter on the non-regulated, suction side of the pump within the in-plant tank facility, and\nthat its function of detecting low suction pressure excludes it from the overpressure safety device\nrequirements of § 195.428. I therefore withdraw the alleged violation with regard to the suction\npressure-control device.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test each item of pressure-control equipment at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of\ncapacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used with regard to the pump\nstation discharge and line pressure transmitters.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Sunoco violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states in relevant\npart:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed\nto the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located:\nThen the frequency of inspection\nis:\nOnshore…………….......................\nAt least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months\n4 Response at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5010\nPage 4\nOffshore…………………………... At least once each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding\n15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect\nportions of its pipeline system at the Boston Logan Airport that are exposed to the atmosphere at\nleast once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that during their inspection, PHMSA inspectors reviewed atmospheric-\ncorrosion inspection records for the Boston Logan Airport pipeline system. The records indicated\nthat atmospheric-corrosion inspections were conducted on May 2, 2012, and September 9, 2013.\nRecords provided by Sunoco indicated that the next inspections were conducted between\nFebruary 8, 2017, and May 20, 2017, missing the 39-month deadline by between two and 21\nmonths, as shown on the chart in the Notice.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect\nportions of its pipelines within the Boston Logan Airport system that were exposed to the\natmosphere at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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.5 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $127,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test each item of pressure-control equipment at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it is functioning\nproperly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and\nreliability of operation for the service in which it is used. Sunoco requested that the number of\ninstances of probable violation be reduced to two and that the associated proposed civil penalty\nbe recalculated because the suction pressure-control device was exempt from 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\n5 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\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5010\nPage 5\nI have agreed that only two instances of violation occurred, those relating to the pump-station\ndischarge and line-pressure transmitters.\nBased upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $69,800 for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $51,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.583(a), for failing to inspect portions of its pipeline system at the Boston Logan Airport\nthat were exposed to the atmosphere at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 39 months. Sunoco neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $51,400 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a). Payment for this Item was received by PHMSA on March\n20, 2018.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $121,200. Sunoco partially paid\nthis penalty on March 20, 2018, making a payment in the amount of $51,400. Therefore, a\nbalance of $69,800 remains outstanding.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $69,800 remaining civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current\nannual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23.\nPursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be\ncharged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil\npenalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2018-5010\nPage 6\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 18, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":16954}