{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320095016","title":"SUNOCO, INC (R&M) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-09-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.406(b), 195.573(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320095016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320095016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320095016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320095016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO, INC (R&M). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.406(b),  195.573(d). The case was opened on 2009-09-17 and is reported as closed as of 2013-03-22. Proposed civil penalty: $32,500. Assessed civil penalty: $32,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320095016_Final Order_12312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095016/320095016_Final%20Order_12312012.pdf\n\n320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095016/320095016_Final%20Order_12312012_text.pdf\n\n320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095016/320095016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09172009.pdf\n\n320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095016/320095016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09172009_text.pdf\n\n320095016_operator response to NOPV PCP_10192009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320095016/320095016_operator%20response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP_10192009.pdf\n\n320095016_NOPV PCP PCO_09172009_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 17, 2009\nMr. Vincent Kelley\nSr. Vice President\nRefining and Supply\nSun Refining and Marketing (Sunoco R&M)\n1735 Market Street\nSuite LL\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nCPF 3-2009-5016\nDear Mr. Kelley:\nOn October 24-28, 2005, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nToledo Refinery pipeline facilities in Toledo, Ohio.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. 195.406 Maximum operating pressure\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or other\nvariations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure\nlimit established under paragraph (a) of this section. Each operator must provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure within this\nlimit.\nSunoco R&M exceeded 110% of the MOP (605 psig) on Line 59, which feeds the Buckeye\nYork Street pumping station, on November 17, 2004, for a period of 34 minutes.\nA hydrostatic test was conducted on Line 59 on October 7, 2004. The 688 psig test pressure\nestablished an MOP of 550.4 psig. A high pressure shutdown device was installed on Line 59\non October 29, 2004, however the device was not fully programmed (placed into operation)\nuntil February 22, 2005. On November 17, 2004, the pipeline was operated at pressures\nranging from 621.6 to 697.5 psig for a period of 34 minutes. This pressure excursion\nreportedly resulted from a valve closure at the Buckeye pumping station. This issue was\ninitially discovered by the Process Safety Management Coordinator while reviewing operating\ndata, on March 11, 2005.\n2. 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to\ncontrol corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that\noperation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API\nRecommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not required if you note\nin the corrosion control procedures established under Sec. 195.402(c)(3) why\ncompliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API\nRecommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nSunoco R&M has not cathodically protected three breakout tanks in accordance with API\nRecommended Practice 651. Sunoco R&M has also not indicated in their corrosion control\nprocedures why cathodic protection of these breakout tanks is not necessary. Breakout\nTank #’s 1601, 1602 and 16015 are not cathodically protected. This can be in compliance with\nthe regulations if the operator notes in the corrosion control procedures why it is not necessary\nfor the safety of the tank(s). In order to make that determination a number of items associated\nwith the tanks need to be investigated. These include: Tank Design, Construction History,\nType of Service, Inspection/Corrosion History, and Other Factors. Sunoco R&M has indicated\n2\n\n\n\nthat these items were discussed internally in 2004, and those personnel that were involved\nagreed that cathodic protection was not required for continued safe/reliable operation of the\nbreakout tanks. Only limited information has been provided concerning the 2004 study. An\ne-mail communication from October 18, 2005 indicates that the tanks are used for gas oil\nstorage, and that they were scheduled to be taken out of service / decommissioned in 2008.\nTank #1602 was demolished late in 2008. A status update for Tank #’s 1601 and 16015 was\nprovided via e-mail on September 1, 2009. The e-mail indicates that Sunoco R&M has\ndecided Tanks #’s 1601 and 16015 will remain in service. Another study was completed per\nAPI 651, and it was determined that cathodic protection should be installed to protect the tank\nbottoms. Currently, separate projects involving installation of monitoring wells as a method of\nleak detection, and installation of cathodic protection for corrosion control of the tank bottoms\nare in the process of being implemented.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000\nfor any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $32,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $32,500\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco R&M.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted3\n\n\n\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find\nfacts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2009-5016 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nIvan A. Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sunoco R&M a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sunoco R&M\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the lack of cathodic\nprotection or the adequate justification why such protection is not required on\nBreakout Tanks 1601 and 16015, Sunoco R&M must develop a plan (including\nthe time frame) for installing and putting into service a cathodic protection\nsystem. In lieu of installing such a cathodic protection system, Sunoco R&M\nmay provide adequate justification to demonstrate cathodic protection is not\nrequired. In either event, Sunoco R&M shall provide a response within 60 days\nof receipt of this notice outlining the status of plans for installation of a cathodic\nprotection system or providing justification that a cathodic protection system is\nnot required.\n2. Sunoco R&M shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Ivan\nHuntoon, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n320095016_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 31, 2012\nMr. Chuck J. Bullard\nPresident\nSunoco, Inc. (R&M)\n1735 Market Street, Suite LL\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nRe: CPF No. 3-2009-5016\nDear Mr. Bullard:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $32,500. It further finds that Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) has\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nWhen the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. John Pickering, Senior Vice President, Manufacturing, Sunoco, Inc. Refining &\nMarketing, 1735 Market Street, Suite LL, Philadelphia, PA 19103\nMr. David Hoffman, Vice President, Toledo Refining Company, LLC, 1819 Woodville\nRoad, Oregon, Ohio 43616\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSunoco, Inc. (R&M), ) CPF No. 3-2009-5016\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween October 24-28, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Sunoco, Inc.\n(R&M) (Sunoco R&M or Respondent), in Toledo, Ohio. Sunoco R&M operates various crude\noil and petroleum products pipelines and terminal facilities from Texas and the Gulf of Mexico\nto the Great Lakes Region.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 17, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Sunoco R&M had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.406(b) and 195.573(d) and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $32,500 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the other alleged violation.\nSunoco R&M responded to the Notice by letters dated October 19 and November 19, 2009\n(collectively, Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided\nan explanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or\neliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Sunoco R&M did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49\nC.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 http://www.sunocologistics.com/Customers/Business-Lines/Asset-Map/130/ (last accessed December 12, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) …\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or\nother variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section.\nEach operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to\ncontrol the pressure within this limit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure\nin Line 59 to exceed 110 percent of the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of 605 psig.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that on November 17, 2004, Sunoco R&M permitted Line 59 to\noperate at pressures ranging from 621.6 to 697.5 psig for a period of 34 minutes.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent vi-olated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the\npressure in Line 59 to exceed 110 percent of the MOP of 605 psig.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a)…\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank\nto ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance\nwith [American Petroleum Institute] API Recommended Practice 651.\nHowever, this inspection is not required if you note in the corrosion\ncontrol procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) why compliance\nwith all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API\nRecommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to cathodically\nprotect three breakout tanks in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651 (RP 651).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco R&M failed to cathodically protect breakout tanks\n1601, 1602, and 16015 or, alternatively, to demonstrate that under its procedures compliance\nwith the cathodic protection requirements of RP 651 was not necessary for these tanks, based on\ntheir design and operating parameters and other relevant factors.\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. § 195.573(d) by failing to cathodically\nprotect breakout tanks 1601, 1602, and 16015 in accordance with RP 651.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n3\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 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; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $32,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure in Line 59 to exceed 110 percent of the MOP\nof 605 psig. In its Response, Sunoco R&M explained that the root cause of the overpressure\nevent was the inadvertent closure of a third-party valve at the downstream pumping station and\nthat its P-16001 pump in operation at the time had a low-flow shutdown which activated after\nvalve was closed. Respondent noted that no adverse impacts or product releases resulted from\nthe event and that it was discovered and reported by Sunoco R&M’s own personnel. Respondent\nfurther explained that it removed the P-16001 pump from service and began operating with a\nsmaller pump which is not capable of exceeding the MOP on Line 59. For these reasons,\nRespondent requested that PHMSA consider eliminating the proposed penalty.2\nWith respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any overpressure event\nhas the potential to impact safety because normal pressure levels have been exceeded.\nRespondent is correct that fortunately no product releases resulted from the event, but this was\ntaken into consideration when the proposed penalty amount was determined and would have\nbeen higher had a release been involved. While a third-party’s equipment was involved,\nRespondent is culpable for the violation as pipeline operators are obligated to control the\npressure in the lines they operate. I acknowledge the corrective action taken by Respondent\nfollowing the event to begin using a pump with more appropriate capacity for the application, but\nthis does not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the regulation prior to the event.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $32,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Final Order.\nPayment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number\nfor this case), made payable to “U.S. Department of Transportation,” to the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-\n341), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n§ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions\n2 Response letter dated October 19, 2009.\n\n\n\n4\nare contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $32,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director\nindicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance\norder:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(d) (Item 2), Respondent has completed\nthe installation of cathodic protection systems on two of the tanks and has taken the\nthird out of service.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. In addition,\nRespondent no longer operates the pipeline facilities that were the subject of this proceeding.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order. The\ncurrent operator, Toledo Refining Company, LLC, is hereby provided with a copy of the Order\nand requested to operate the facilities in question in accordance with its terms.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate\nAdministrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,\n2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at\nthe same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of\nservice of the Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the\nissue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other\nprovisions of the Final Order, including any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits\npayment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived.\n\n\n\n5\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":21996}